-\ 


THE   ESTABLISHMENT  OF  CHRISTIANITY  AND 
THE  PROSCRIPTION  OF  PAGANISM 


MAt'liE  ALINE  I1UTTMANN,  A.M., 

Littructor  in  HisUn-y  in  Barnard  College 
Columbia  University 


SUBMITTED   IN   PARTIAL   FULFILMENT  OF   THE   REQUIREMENT . 
FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 

1914 


THE  LIBRARIES 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


1 
i 
i 
I 
i 
i 
i 
i 
I 
i 
i 


r^nnJffOilfri^ffuillrO^rrinJifuunirOl 


THE   ESTABLISHMENT  OF   CHRISTIANITY   AND 
THE  PROSCRIPTION  OF  PAGANISM 


MAUDE  ALINE  HUTTMANN,  A.M., 

Instructor  in  History  in  Barnard  College 
Columbia  University 


SUBMITTED    IN   PARTIAL    FULFILMENT    OF    THE    REQUIREMENTS 

FOR    THE   DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1914 


7    %*^    i  ^~~ 


Copyright,  1914 

BY 

MAUDE  ALINE  HUTTMANN 


PREFACE 

The  original  purpose  of  this  dissertation  was  to  describe 
the  measures  taken  by  Constantine  and  his  successors  in  the 
fourth  century  to  limit  or  destroy  the  pagan  cults.  On  ex- 
amining Constantine's  relation  to  paganism,  however,  it 
became  evident  that  it  was  not  enough  to  accept  him  simply 
as  the  first  Christian  emperor ;  it  was  imperative  to  under- 
stand something  of  his  personal  religious  belief,  and  his 
work  for  the  Christian  Church,  since  both,  it  has  been 
claimed,  contributed  to  the  general  injury  from  which 
paganism  suffered  during  his  reign.  The  stories  of  Con- 
stantine's conversion  and  of  his  edicts  of  toleration  led  the 
author  into  a  tangle  of  disputed  questions  through  which 
she  has  sought  to  make  a  way  that  may  easily  be  traversed 
by  anyone  who  cares  to  go  over  the  ground  again. 

Since  the  object  in  dealing  with  these  particular  prob- 
lems and  Constantine's  legislation  for  the  Christian  Church 
was  merely  to  aid  in  the  comprehension  of  his  general 
policy,  it  has  seemed  advisable  to  omit  discussion  of  the 
Emperor's  laws  against  heterodox  Christianity.  The  ques- 
tion of  heresy  under  the  Christian  emperors  is  so  intricate 
as  to  demand  separate  treatment. 

The  limitations  of  time,  and  the  space  required  for  the 
discussion  of  Constantine's  policy  of  toleration,  have,  un- 
fortunately, made  it  impossible  to  complete  the  original 
scheme  of  incorporating  in  this  thesis  all  the  results  of  the 
author's  researches  into  the  legal  position  of  paganism 
throughout  the  fourth  century.  Since  she  could  not  here 
treat  the  subsequent  period  so  fully  as  she  had  the  reign  of 
263]  5 


PREFACE 


[264 


Constantine,  she  was  inclined  to  publish  as  a  separate  work 
all  her  post-Constantine  material.  Nevertheless,  Constan- 
tine's  legislation  stands  in  sharper  outline  when  compared 
with  that  of  his  successors.  Furthermore,  to  exclude  the 
later  laws  seemed  to  make  the  whole  book  more  useful  by 
assembling  together  the  entire  mass  of  scattered  anti-pagan 
legislation.  The  author  therefore  decided  to  append  to  her 
account  of  Toleration  under  Constantine  the  laws  passed  by 
his  successors  as  preserved  in  the  Codes  of  Theodosius  and 
Justinian  and  to  preface  each  group  of  laws  with  an  outline 
of  the  main  political  events  of  each  reign.  The  loss  of 
unity  entailed  by  the  scheme,  will,  it  is  hoped,  be  offset  by 
a  greater  usefulness  to  the  student  of  the  subject. 

The  author  is  happy  to  have  this  opportunity  to  express 
her  lasting  obligation  to  Professor  James  Harvey  Robin- 
son, under  whom  a  large  part  of  her  graduate  work  was 
done.  She  is  grateful  to  Professor  Munroe  Smith  for  his 
kindness  in  reading  her  manuscript  and  offering  valuable, 
criticisms.  She  also  owes  much  to  Doctor  Louise  Ropes 
Loomis  for  translation  of  Greek  texts  and  advice  in  ren- 
dering the  laws.  Most  deeply  is  she  indebted  to  Professor 
James  Thompson  Shot  well,  at  whose  suggestion  this  en- 
terprise was  begun  and  upon  whom  has  fallen  the  burden 
of  supervising  its  completion. 

M.  A.  H. 

Barnard  College,  May  i,  1914. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Preface    5 

PART  ONE 
TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE 

CHAPTER  I 
Constantine's  Personal  Religion 

1 .  The  difficulty  in  determining  a  monarch's  private  religion j  3 

2.  Constantine's  religion  before  312 14 

3.  His  conversion  to  Christianity 16 

(1)  The  political  situation  in  312 17 

(2)  The  accounts  of  a  conversion  as  found  in  Eusebius,  Lactantius, 

Sozomen,  Socrates  and  Zosimus  , 17 

4.  Conclusions 28 

CHAPTER   II 
Edicts  of  Toleration  Published,  311-324 
I.  Position  of  the  Christian  Church  in  312 31 

(1)  Diocletian's  policy  toward  Christianity 31 

( 2)  Galerius'  edict  of  toleration 33 


a.  The  occasion 

b.  The  text   .    . 


33 
33 


The  interpretation 34 

(3)  Christianity  religio  licita  except  in  Maximin's  territory    ....      37 


2.  The  so-called  Edict  of  Rome 


37 


(1)  Early  faith  in  its  existence 38 

(2)  Reasons  why  its  existence  is  to-day  questioned 39 

(3)  Conclusions 42 

3.  The  "  Edict  of  Milan  " 44 

(1)  The  old  view  of  the  edict 4c 

( 2)  Seeck's  critique  of  the  accepted  view 45 

a.  His  objections  to  calling  the  texts  of  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v, 

and  Lact.,  ch.  xlviii,  copies  of  an  Edict  of  Milan  ...  45 

b.  A  Decree  of  Nicomedia  but  no  Edict  of  Milan    ....  47 

(3)  Gorres'  reply  to  Seeck 40 

a.  Accepts  the  chief  conclusion  of  Seeck 49 

b.  Faults  which  Gorres  finds  in  Seeck's  point  of  view.    .    .  49 

c.  An  Edict  of  Milan  as  well  as  a  Decree  of  Nicomedia.     .  51 

(4)  Comparison  of  the  conclusions  of  Seeck  and  Gorres 51 

(5)  Hiille's  examination  of  the  texts  of  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia  .    .  52 

a.  Analysis  of  contents c2 

b.  Closer  sympathy  with  the  conclusions  of  G5rres  than  of 

Seeck c? 

265]  '    7 


8  CONTENTS  [266 

PACE 

(6)  Scrutiny  of  the  evidence  for  and  against  the  existence   of  an 

Edict  of  Milan 53 

4.  Analysis  of  the  contents  of  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia 54 

(1)  Its  two  parts 54 

a.  Policy  of  toleration  outlined  at  Milan 54 

b.  Provisions  made  at  Nicomedia 55 

(a)  Toleration  and  indemnification  for  Christians    ...  55 

(b)  Religious  freedom  for  all  men 55 

(2)  Interpretation 55 

(a)  Monotheistic  character  of  the  document  . 55 

(b)  Extension  of  the  toleration  given  by  Galerius 5S 

CHAPTER  III 
Constantine's  Legislation  for  Christians 

1.  Application  of  the  policy  of  Milan  and  Nicomedia 59 

(1)  Legislation  for  Christianity „ 59 

a.  Privileges ,  59 

b.  Exemptions 60 

c.  Gifts 61 

2.  The  Emperor's  relation  to  Christianity 63 

(1)  Neutral  prayer  for  the  army 64 

(2)  Instruction  in  Christian  doctrine 64 

(3)  The  Donatists  and  the  Arians 65 

3.  Constantine  the  sole  Emperor 66 

(1)  The  break  with  Licinius 66 

(2)  Decrees  of  toleration  for  the  East 67 

a.  To  the  Christian  churches 67 

b.  To  the  provinces  in  the  East 69 

(3)  Appointment  of  Christian  governors 71 

(4)  Prohibition  of  official  sacrifices  not  necessarily  an   attack  upon 

paganism 74 

4.  Series  of  laws  showing  the  humane  character  of  the  Emperor 75 

CHAPTER   IV 
Constantine's  Legislation  Affecting  Paganism 

1.  His  position  as  Pontifex  Maximus 77 

2.  The  small  number  of  laws  directly  affecting  pagans 77 

3.  Treatment  of  pagans  in  the  East    . 78 

(1)  Injury  to  temples 78 

(2)  Appropriation  of  the  wealth  of  temples  for  the  imperial  treasury  .  82 

(3)  Popular  attacks  on  paganism. 84 

4.  Evidences  that  paganism  suffered  no  attacks  in  the  West 85 

(1)  No  temple  despoiled  or  destroyed 85 

(2)  Officials  initiated  into  pagan  cults 85 

5.  Laws  on  magic  and  divination 85 

(1)  Divination  and  magic  in  Rome 85 

(2)  Discussion  and  interpretation  of  Constantine's  laws  on  these  subjects  87 


257]  CONTENTS  9 


FACE 


6.  Did  Constantine  finally  pass  a  law  prohibiting  all  sacrifices  ? 92 

(1)   Examination  of  the  evidences  for  and  against  its  existence  .    .    .  92 

7.  Anti-pagan  acts  of  Constantine 97 

(1)  Celebration  of  the  30th  year  of  his  reign 9s 

(2)  Removal  of  the  Nilometer  from  the  temple  of  Serapis    ....  99 

8.  No  interference  with  privileges  of  pagan  priesthoods 99 

9.  The  two  laws  confirming  exemptions  to  certain  African  priesthoods.     .    .  99 

(1)  The  secular  character  of  most  of  the  offices  mentioned     ....  100 

10.  The  Hispellum  Inscription IO° 

CHAPTER  V 
Paganism  in  Constantinople 

1.  Motives  for  founding  the  new  capital.    . I04 

2.  The  problem  of  paganism  in  Constantinople JQ5 

(1)  Existence  of  altars  or  temples  in  the  city 106 

(2)  Zosimus'  account  of  the  city IO° 

(3)  Accounts  of  the  Byzantine  historians 107 

(4)  The  city's  protector IO° 

(5)  Statues  and  the  Delphic  tripod io9 

(6)  The  porpyhry  column Il° 

(7)  Consecration II2 

3.  The  difficulty  of  the  problem II2 

4.  Criticism  of  the  points  cited  above.     .    .        Il3 

CHAPTER  VI 

Conclusions XI9 

PART  TWO 
LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  IN  THE  ROMAN  CODES 

CHAPTER  I 
Law  in  the  Later  Empire 

1.  The  codes  of  Theodosius  and  Justinian i27 

2.  Laws  preserved  outside  the  codes I2° 

3.  Sources  of  law r3° 

4.  Kinds  of  law I3° 

5.  Publication  of  a  law I3I 

6.  Registering r32 

7.  Competence  of  a  law I33 

8.  Theory  of  the  unity  of  law  not  always  maintained  in  practice  .     .    .        .  133 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Religious  Legislation  of  Constantine 

1.  Decrees  of  toleration x3° 

2.  Pro-Christian  laws I49 

3.  Humanitarian  laws *"* 

4.  Concerning  divination  and  magic Io2 

5.  Laws  concerning  paganism io5 


10  CONTENTS  [268 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  III 
Laws  ok  the  Sons  of  Constantine 

1.  Introduction 169 

2.  Legislation 174 

(1)  Concerning  magic  and  divination 174 

(2)  Anti-pagan  legislation 175 

CHAPTER  IV 
Valentinian  and  Vai.ens 

1.  The  regalvanizing  of  paganism  under  Julian 178 

2.  The  short  reign  of  Jovian 180 

3.  Outline  of  events  during  the  reigns  of  Valentinian  and  Valens 180 

4.  Legislation 186 

(1)  Legal  divination  and  full  religious  liberty  permitted    .....  186 

(2)  Concerning  magic  and  divination 186 

(3)  Pro  pagan  legislation 1S9 

CHAPTER  V 
Gratian  and  Theodosius 

1.  Introduction 19° 

2.  Legislation 196 

(1)  Concerning  magic  and  divination. 196 

(2)  Apostasy 197 

(3)  Pro-pagan  law 198 

CHAPTER  VI 
Theodosius  and  Valentinian  II 

1.  Introduction 200 

2.  Laws 209 

( 1 )  Concerning  magic  and  divination 209 

(2)  Apostasy •  213 

(3)  Anti-pagan  laws 215 

(4)  Pro-pagan  law 218 

CHAPTER  VII 
Honorius,  Arcadius,  Theodosius  II  and  Valentinian  III 

1.  Introduction 219 

2.  Laws 223 

( 1 )  Concerning  magic  and  divination 223 

(2)  Apostasy 224 

(3)  Anti-pagan  laws 225 

(4)  Laws  protecting  pagans 239 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Laws  after  Theodosius  II  and  Valentinian  III 240 

Bibliography 250 


PART  I 
TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE 


CHAPTER  I 
Constantine's  Personal  Religion 

The  historian  is  confronted  with  a  difficult  problem  when 
he  attempts  to  pass  judgment  on  any  man's  religion.  Even 
to  weigh  the  significance  of  outward  religious  observance  is 
no  easy  matter.  Temperament,  training,  and  worldly  posi- 
tion all  play  important  parts  in  determining,  not  only  what 
shall  be  an  individual's  faith,  but  also,  what  shall  be  his  ex- 
pression of  it  before  the  world.  If  it  is  hard  to  put  an  esti- 
mate on  public  behavior,  it  is  a  doubly  serious  business  to 
determine  what  feelings  lie  back  of  the  acts.  When  the 
man  whose  religious  conduct  and  feelings  we  are  examining 
is  a  statesman,  it  seems  well  nigh  impossible  to  be  confident 
of  finding  the  springs  of  his  actions.  Astute  rulers  of 
great  empires  have  found  the  support  of  religion  an  inval- 
uable assistance  in  strengthening  their  hold  on  their  sub- 
pects.  Some  monarchs,  while  they  gave  outward  adher- 
ence to  a  cult,  have  been  secretly  indifferent  to  it;  others, 
while  assuming  an  attitude  of  indifference,  have  derived 
personal  saits faction  from  faith  in  its  tenets,  and  obser- 
vance of  its  rites.  It  is  consequently,  a  difficult  problem  for 
the  historian  to  determine  whether  a  great  statesman's  re- 
ligion is  his  own  personal  belief,  or  whether  it  is  but  part 
of  his  statecraft.  Particularly  is  this  the  case  where  a  mon- 
arch rules  over  peoples  of  different  religions.  He  has  then 
the  arduous  task  of  adjusting  their  various  claims  and  of 
securing  the  support  of  the  cults  which  have  the  most 
numerous,  or  the  most  fanatical  adherents.  In  such  a  case 
-71]  13 


I4  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [272 

even  the  fullest  and  best  of  sources  may  still  leave  a  doubt 
in  the  historian's  mind.  For  who  can  tell  whether  the  ruler 
is  practising  dissimulation  or  not?  The  more  astute  and 
successful  he  is,  the  more  uncertain  we  become  in  our  con- 
fidence in  the  sources  we  have.  It  is  even  possible  that  the 
monarch  himself  may  be  practising  self-deception. 

Such  is  the  nature  of  the  problem  of  Constantine's  own 
religious  belief.     It  is  claimed  by  some  historians  that  he 
was  distinctly  unreligious,  while  others  find  equal  warrant 
in  the  sources  for  depicting  him  as  the  most  devout  of  men 
whose  religion  was  a  matter  of  both  faith  and  practice. 
Burckhardt,  for  example,  whose  biography  written  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  still  remains  one  of  the 
important  contributions  toward  the  study  of  Constantine's 
character,  viewed  him  as  essentially  unreligious.    The  opin- 
ion of  recent  scholarship,  however,  seems  to  take  the  op- 
posite view.    Whether  Constantine  were  sincerely  religious 
or  not,  the  fact-  remains  that  he  passed  for  such  to  many 
persons  in  his  time.     Before  he  was  claimed  by  the  Chris- 
tians as  a  follower  of  the  Cross,  his  piety  and  lively  interest 
in  religion  excited  the  approval  of  pagans.1     Eumenius, 
writing  in  310,  states  that  when  he  entered  a  village,  sta- 
tues of  the  gods  were  borne  before  him  in  order  to  please 
him,  and  that  he  was  noted  for  his  conspicuous  devotion  to 
Apollo,2  and  in  308,  after  wars  in  Gaul,  he  visited  the  temple 

1  Eumenii   Panegyricus    Constantino    Augusto,    chs.    xxi    and    xxn, 
paragraphs  1  and  2. 

2  Eumenii  Gratiarum  Actio,  Const.  Aug.,  ch.  viii,  par.  4.  "  Sed  om- 
nium Deorum  nostrorum  simulacra  protulimus." 

Eum.  Panegyr.  Const.  Aug.,  ch.  xxi,  p.  1372,  par.  3,  "  Ipsa  hoc  sic 
ordinante  fortuna,  ut  te  ibi  rerum  tuarum  felicitas  admoneret,  Diis 
immortalibus  ferre,  quae  voveras,  ubi  deflixisses,  ad  templum  toto  orbe 
pulcherrimum  («'.  d.  of  Apollo)  immo  ad  praesentem,  ut  vidisti  Deum." 
Also  par.  4,  "  Vidisti  enim,  credo,  Constantine,  Apollinem  tuum,  comi- 
tante  Victoria,  coronas  tibi  laureas  offerentem,  quae  tricenum  singulae 
ferunt  omen  annorum."    Likewise  ch.  xxi,  p.  1373,  par.  7-  "  Jam  omnia 


27o]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  I5 

of  that  divinity  in  Autun  and  made  it  a  rich  gift.1  At  the 
same  time  the  figure  of  the  Sun-god  appeared  on  his  coins." 
Eusebius  calls  Constantine  "  the  pious  son  of  a  most  pious 
and  prudent  father."  3 

One  must  not  put  too  much  faith  in  the  enduring  effect 
of  family  training — witness  Julian;  but  the  remark  of  Euse- 
bius gains  credibility  from  Constantine's  actions  as  soon 
as  he  became  Caesar,  which  apparently  followed  the  line  of 
toleration  which  had  been  set  by  his  father.  Just  what 
deity  Constantius  Chlorus  worshiped,  history  does  not 
definitely  settle.  Eusebius  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
father  of  Constantine  was  at  heart  a  Christian.4  It  has 
been  pointed  out  that  one  of  Constantine's  sisters  received 
the  Christian  name  of  Anastasia,5  and  it  is  known  that  al- 
though the  name  of  Constantius  Chlorus  appears  on  edicts 
of  persecution  against  the  Christians,  alongside  those  of  his 
colleagues,  the  decrees  were  not  enforced  in  his  territory.0 
Such  tolerant  attitude,  however,  might  come  from  a  syn- 
cretism in  religion,  as  well  as  from  a  firm  and  settled  faith 
in  Christianity.7     The  only  thing  we  can  say  is,  that  ap- 

te  vocare  ad  se  templa  videantur  praecipueque  Apollo  noster."  Cf.  ch. 
xxii,  par.  2. 

1  Ibid.,  ch.  xxi,  par.  7,  "  Merito  igitur  augustissima  ilia  delubra  tantis 
doneriis  honestasti,  et  jam  vetera  non  quaerant." 

1  Schiller,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Kaiserzeit,  vol.  ii,  p.  204 ;  cf. 
Gibbon,  The  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
vol.  ii,  p.  291.  Maurice,  Nnmismatique  Constaniinienne,  vol.  ii,  intro- 
duction, p.  xxiii,  thinks  that  Julian's  accusation  (Oratio,  vii)  that  Con- 
stantine abandoned  the  Cult  of  the  Sun,  is  proof  that  he  had  practised 
it  before  his  conversion. 

3  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix. 

4  Vita  Constantini,  bk.  i,  chs.  xiii-xviii. 

5  Cf.  Duchesne,  Histoire  ancienne  de  YEglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  57. 

6  Cf.  infra,  ch.  ii.,  p.  32. 

7  Cf.  Beugnot,  La  Destruction  du  Paganism e,  vol.  i,  p.  55 ;  Schiller, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  204;  Boissier,  La  Fin  du  Paganisme,  vol.  i,  pp.  18  et  seq. 


j 5  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [274 

parently  Constantine  was  reared  in  an  atmosphere  as  hos- 
pitable to  the  persecuted  religion  as  to  the  cults  the  empire 
tolerated. 

The  syncretistic  movements  of  Constantine's  day  brought 
old  and  new  religions  into  closer  relationship  and  laid  em- 
phasis upon  those  cults  which  evoked  personal  devotion  to  a 
single  deity.  To  all  appearances,  at  least,  Constantine's 
religion  was  affected  by  this  movement.  The  worship  of 
Apollo,  the  divine  physician,1  was  part  of  the  old  state  re- 
ligion which  had  had  a  specially  magnificent  setting  since 
Augustus's  religious  revival.  The  cult  of  Mithras  offered 
a  personal  deity  whose  work  for  man's  spiritual  regenera- 
tion made  him  a  rival  to  the  Saviour  of  the  Christians.  It 
is  evident  that  the  substitution  of  Christianity  for  the  re- 
ligion of  Apollo  and  Mithras  was  not  so  great  a  step  as  it 
might  appear  to  later  theologians,  for  the  convert  might 
closely  approximate  his  ideas  of  the  Christ  to  those  of  the 
victorious  Sun-god,  whose  worship  was  so  widely  spread 
among  the  legions,  or  to  Apollo,  the  light-bearer.  However 
this  may  be,  the  Church  historians,  and  Constantine  him- 
self— at  least  in  later  life — held  to  a  more  definite  conver-i 
sion  and  since  the  attention  of  subsequent  writers,  both 
pagan  and  Christian,  fastened  upon  this  incident  as  an 
epoch  in  the  life  of  the  emperor,  we  shall  gain  our  best 
glimpse  of  the  problem  of  his  character  and  true  attitude,  by 
examining  the  various  accounts  in  detail. 

In  312,  Constantine,  whether  from  religious  or  from 
political  motives,  could  realize  the  value  of  a  propitious  and 
powerful   deity  to  prosper  an  undertaking.     Diocletian's 

1 1 atro mantis  (physician  and  seer),  Oulios  (health-giving,  able  to 
purify  the  guilty  and  cleanse  from  sin).  He  was  consulted,  along  with 
Esculapius,  for  remedies  at  the  time  of  Galerius'  last  illness.  Lac- 
tantius,  De  Mortibus  Persecutorum,  ch.  xxxiii.  He  was  supposed  to  be 
the  father  of  Esculapius. 


275]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  iy 

carefully  wrought  scheme  for  the  imperial  succession  did 
not  last  out  even  his  own  lifetime.1  Shortly  after  his  ab- 
dication in  305,  so  many  ambitious  men  snatched  at  the  im- 
perial purple  that  the  Roman  government  became  as  hydra- 
headed  a  state  as  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Towards  the 
end  of  312,  the  number  of  the  emperors  had  so  far  been  re- 
duced, that  only  four  remained :  Maximin  and  Licinius  in 
the  East,  and  Constantine  and  Maxentius  in  the  West.  Per- 
sonal ambition  and  the  complexity  of  events  made  it  impos- 
sible that  the  two  rulers  of  the  West  should  remain  col- 
leagues ; 2  one  or  the  other  must  yield  his  rule.  Maxentius 
held  Italy  and  was  established  in  Rome  where,  according  to 
the  Christian  historians,  his  oppressive  measures  and  moral 
turpitude  made  him  heartily  detested.3  Into  Italy  from 
Gaul  Constantine  hastened  the  latter  part  of  312,  hoping 
to  crush  his  rival.  His  victories  in  Italy  culminated  in  the 
battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge,  October  28,  312,  the  battle 
with  which  is  connected  the  story  of  Constantine's  alleged 
adoption  of  Christianity. 

Among  the  sources  which  deal  with  Constantine's  conver- 
sion the  two  accounts  of  Eusebius  meet  us  first.  The 
"  Church  History  "  has  only  a  slight  and  most  unsatis- 
factory reference.    After  describing  the  preparation  for  the 

1  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xiii.  Schiller,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  164, 
has  an  excellent  account  of  the  break-up  of  Diocletian's  plan  for  the 
imperial  succession. 

2  After  the  death  of  Galerius,  Constantine  and  Licinius  evidently  made 
a  compact  agreeing  to  dispose  first  of  Maxentius  and  then  of  Maximin. 
Cf.  Zosimus'  History  of  the  Roman  Empire,  bk.  ii,  pp.  42  et  seq.;  also 
Anonymus  .Valesii,  Origo  Constantini  imperatoris,  bk.  v,  ch.  xiii.  The 
formal  reasons  given  for  the  struggle  between  Constantine  and  Maxen- 
tius were:  on  Constantine's  part,  the  misrule  of  Maxentius  in  Rome 
and  Italy;  on  Maxentius'  part,  the  intention  to  avenge  his  father's 
death,  which  he  laid  to  Constantine's  door.    Eus.,  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xxvi. 

3  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xiv ;  V.  C,  bk.  i,  chs.  xxxii-xxxv ;  Sozomen, 
Historia  Ecclesiastica,  bk.  i,  ch.  ii. 


Tg  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [276 

impending  battle  with  Maxentius,  Eusebius  says,  "  Constan- 
tine, who  was  the  head  of  the  empire  in  dignity  and  rank, 
having  compassion  upon  those  who  were  oppressed  at 
Rome,  invoking  in  prayer  the  God  of  Heaven,  and  his 
Word,  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the  Saviour  of  all,  as  his  aid, 
advanced  with  his  whole  army,  proposing  to  restore  to  the 
Romans  the  benefits  of  that  liberty  which  they  had  from 
their  ancestors."  x  "  Maxentius,  putting  confidence  rather 
in  the  acts  of  sorcery  than  in  the  devotion  of  his  subjects 
did  not  dare  to  go  forth  beyond  the  gates  of  the  city.  .  .  . 
But  the  emperor  relying  upon  the  asistance  of  God,2  at- 
tacked the  first,  second,  and  third  army  of  the  tyrant  and 
conquered  them  all."  "  Then,  acknowledging  that  his  aid 
was  from  God,  he  had  his  statue,  cross  in  hand,  set  up  in 
Rome  as  a  memorial  of  his  victory  at  the  Milvian  Bridge : 
and  had  inscribed  upon  it  '  By  this  salutary  sign,  the  true 
proof  of  bravery,  I  have  saved  and  freed  your  city  from 
the  yoke  of  the  tyrant '."  3 

1  Eus.,  H.  E.,  Teubner  Text,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix. 

2  Constantine's  enterprise  was  a  perilous  one.  It  was  a  hardy  under- 
taking to  attack  Rome  when  one  remembered  that  during  the  preceding 
decade  two  armies  had  recoiled  from  attacking  the  immortal  city.  Up 
to  this  time  Constantine  had  fought  only  barbarians.  The  army  of 
Maxentius  was  made  up  of  the  pretorian  guard,  picked  soldiers  who 
constituted  Rome's  garrison,  and  splendid,  tried  African  troops.  This 
army  had  vanquished  Severus  and  Galerius  and  had  checked  all  attempts 
to  invade  Italy.  In  numbers  Constantine  seems  to  have  had  about  half 
as  many  men  as  Maxentius.  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  p.  43;  Incerti  Panegy.  Con- 
stant, chs.  iii  and  v.  Cf.  Lact.,  De  Mort.  Persecut.,  ch.  xliv.  Incerti 
Panegy.,  ch.  iii,  speaks  of  the  superior  forces  of  Constantine's  opponent. 
This  panegyric,  written  in  313,  is  sometimes  attributed  to  Nazarius. 
Officers  of  Constantine  did  not  hesitate  to  give  utterance  to  their  fears 
that  the  expedition  would  end  in  disastrous  defeat.  Ibid.,  ch.  ii,  par.  4, 
"  Quisnam  te  Deus,  quae  tarn  praesens  hortata  est  majestas,  ut,  omnibus 
fere  tuis  comitibus  et  ducibus,  non  solum  tacite  mussantibus,  sed  etiam 
aperte  timentibus.  .  .  ." 

3  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix.     Cf.  Schultze,  Die  romische  Bildsaule  mit 
dem  Kreuze  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1885,  vol.  vii. 


j  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  19 

The  value  of  this  account  as  a  source  is  obviously  open 
to  criticism.  In  making  Constantine  invoke  Jesus  as  the 
Word  as  well  as  the  Saviour,  we  detect  the  theologian  under 
the  cloak  of  the  historian.  Eusebius  implies  in  this  story 
that  when  Constantine  came  into  Italy,  he  was  already  a 
convinced  Christian,  and  is  followed  in  this  by  Sozomen, 
who  distinctly  states  that  Constantine  was  a  Christian  be- 
fore he  returned  to  Rome  from  the  West.1  Yet  in  a  later 
report  Eusebius  connects  the  conversion  more  closely  with 
the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge.  In  the  account  given  in 
the  "  Life  of  Constantine  ",  written  some  years  later  than 
the  "  Church  History,"  2  we  have  less  of  Eusebius  and  more 
of  Constantine  since  the  account  was  as  Eusebius  says,  taken 
directly  from  the  emperor's  lips.  Constantine  was  gather- 
ing strength  for  the  contest  with  Maxentius  that  was  to 
decide  who  was  to  be  master  of  the  city  of  Rome,  when  he 
learned  the  extreme  efforts  his  rival  was  putting  forth  to 
monopolize  divine  protection. 

Being  convinced,  however,  that  he  needed  some  more  power- 
ful aid  than  his  military  forces  could  afford  him  on  account  of 
the  wicked  and  magical  enchantments  which  were  so  diligently 
practised  by  the  tyrant,  he  sought  Divine  assistance,  deeming 
the  possession  of  arms  and  a  numerous  soldiery  of  secondary 
importance  but  believing  the  co-operating  power  of  Deity  in- 
vincible and  not  to  be  shaken.  He  considered  therefore  on 
what  god  he  might  rely  for  protection  and  assistance;  while 
engaged  in  this  inquiry,  the  thought  occurred  to  him  that  of 
the  many  emperors  who  had  preceded  him  those  who  had 
rested  their  hopes  in  a  multitude  of  gods  and  served  them 
with  sacrifices  and  offerings  had  in  the  first  place  been  de- 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  26. 

2  The  H.  E.,  according  to  McGiffert,  was  undoubtedly  completed  be- 
tween the  latter  part  of  323  and  the  early  part  of  324.  Vide,  McGiffert, 
p.  45.    The  V.  C.  appeared  between  337-340. 


20  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [278 

ceived  by  flattering  predictions  and  oracles  which  promised 
them  all  prosperity  and  at  last  had  met  with  an  unhappy  end 
while  not  one  alone  of  their  gods  had  stood  by  to  warn  them 
of  the  impending  wrath  of  heaven.  While  one  alone  who  had 
pursued  an  entirely  opposite  course,  who  had  condemned  their 
error  and  honored  the  one  supreme  God  during  his  whole 
life,  had  found  him  to  be  the  Saviour  and  Protector  of  his 
empire  and  the  giver  of  every  good  thing.  Reflecting  on  this 
and  well  weighing  the  fact  that  they  who  had  trusted  in  many 
gods  had  also  fallen  by  manifold  forms  of  death  without  leav- 
ing behind  them  either  family  or  offspring,  stock,  name,  or 
memorial  among  men,  while  the  God  of  his  father  had  given 
to  him  on  the  other  hand  manifestations  of  his  power  and  very 
many  tokens ;  and  considering  further  that  those  who  had 
already  taken  arms  against  the  tyrant  and  had  marched  to  the 
battlefield  under  the  protection  of  a  multitude  of  gods  had 
met  with  a  dishonorable  end  .  .  .  reviewing,  I  say,  all  these 
considerations  he  judged  it  to  be  folly  indeed  to  join  in  the  idle 
worship  of  those  who  were  no  gods  and  after  such  convincing 
evidence  to  err  from  the  truth,  and  therefore  felt  it  incum- 
bent on  him  to  honor  his  father's  God  alone.1 

Accordingly,  he  called  on  him  with  earnest  prayer  and  sup- 
plication that  he  would  reveal  to  him  who  he  was  and  stretch 
forth  his  right  hand  to  help  him  in  his  present  difficulties ;  and 
while  he  was  thus  praying  with  fervent  entreaty  a  most  mar- 
vellous sign  appeared  to  him  from  heaven,  the  account  of 
which  might  have  been  hard  to  believe  had  it  been  related  by 
any  other  person.  But  since  the  victorious  emperor  himself 
long  afterwards  declared  it  to  the  writer  of  this  history  when 
.h^was  honored  with  his  acquaintance  and  society  and  con- 
firmed his  statements  by  an  oath,  who  could  hesitate  to  ac- 
credit the  relation,  especially  since  the  testimony  of  after-time 
has  established  the  truth?  He  said  that  at  about  noon,  when 
the  day  was  already  beginning  to  decline,  he  saw  with  his  own 

1  V.  C,  bk.  i,  chs.  xxvii,  xxviii.     Cf.  Socrates,  Historia  Ecclesiastica, 
bk.  i,  ch.  ii ;  also  Philostorgius,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  bk.  i,  ch.  vi. 


27g]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  2I 

eyes  the  trophy  of  a  cross  of  light 1  in  the  heavens  above  the 
sun  and  bearing  the  inscription  "  Conquer  by  this  ".  At  this 
sight  he  himself  was  struck  with  amazement  and  his  whole 
army  which  followed  him  on  this  expedition  and  witnessed 
the  miracle.  He  said  moreover  that  he  doubted  within  himself 
what  the  import  of  this  apparition  could  be  and  while  he  con- 
tinued to  ponder  and  reason  on  its  meaning  night  suddenly 
came  on;  then  in  his  sleep  the  Christ  of  God  appeared  to 
him  with  the  same  sign  which  he  had  seen  in  the  heavens 
and  commanded  him  to  make  a  likeness  of  the  sign  which  he 
had  seen  in  the  heavens  and  to  use  it  as  a  safeguard  in  all  en- 
gagements with  his  enemies.2     The  emperor  constantly  made 

1  It  has  been  attempted  from  time  to  time  to  find  a  natural  explana- 
tion for  Constantine's  vision.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Constantine 
saw  the  phenomenon  of  the  mock  suns — the  real  sun  with  three  mock 
ones  might  have  appeared  like  a  cross.  This  phenomenon  of  the  par- 
helion is  not  uncommon  in  northern,  but  rare  in  southern  latitudes. 
Or  if  one  insists  on  a  materialistic  interpretation,  the  cross  may  have 
been  a  halo  such  as  Whymper  saw  after  an  accident  on  the  Matterhorn, 
1865,  when  he  thought  he  saw  three  crosses  for  his  three  lost  com- 
panions. Cf.  Cambridge  Medieval  History,  vol.  i,  p.  4.  Richardson, 
Life  of  Constantine,  p.  490,  note  2.  Firth,  in  his  Constantine  the  Great, 
p.  104.  calls  attention  to  the  interpretation  put  on  the  aurora  borealis 
in  1848.  In  France  people  saw  in  it  the  letters  "  L.  N.,"  and  regarded 
them  as  heaven's  direction  to  vote  for  Louis  Napoleon  at  the  coming 
election.  In  Italy  the  phenomenon  was  taken  to  be  the  blood  of  the 
murdered  Rossi  calling  for  vengeance. 

2  The  British  Museum  Guide  to  the  Early  Christian  and  Byzantine  An- 
tiquities has  the  picture  of  a  medallion  of  Valens  showing  the  labarum. 
Evidently  the  monogram  N^  had  various  forms  at  different  periods, 
"  some  of  which  are  identical  with  monograms  found  on  the  coinage 
of  western  Asia  long  before  the  foundation  of  Constantinople.  One 
of  them,  -£,  is  used  as  an  abbreviation  for  the  word  rpexahtov  upon 
the  coins  of  Herod  I  (B.  C.  37— B.  C.  41)  ;  another  N^,  which  most 
nearly  corresponds  to  the  description  given  by  Lactantius  of  the  sign 
seen  by  Constantine'  stands  for  the  word  apxovros  on  Phrygian  and 
Lydian  coins  of  the  tirite  of  the  early  Roman  emperors.  The  use  of 
such  monograms  as  abridgments  of  words  upon  coins  was  commonest 
about  the  period  of  Septimius  Severus  (A.  D.  193-211),  and  was  thus 
long  anterior  to  Constantine.  The  Chi-Rho,  in  the  so-called  Constan- 
tinian  form,  was  used  by  Christians  merely  as  an  abbreviation  of  the 


22  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [280 

use  of  this  sign  of  salvation  as  a  safeguard  against  every  ad- 
verse and  hostile  power  and  commanded  that  others  similar  to 
it  should  be  carried  at  the  head  of  all  his  armies.1 

The  second  account  of  Eusebius  became  the  popularly 
accepted  one  among  Christians  and  both  Socrates  and 
Sozomen  about  a  century  later  repeat  it.2  Socrates  makes 
the  point  that  Constantine  realized  that  the  Diocletian  party 
had  not  profited  at  all  from  their  worship  of  the  pagan 

name  of  Christ  in  inscriptions  before  A.  D.  312,  in  ^ ,  for  example, 
standing  for  "  in  Christ."  Its  independent  use  as  an  actual  symbol  of 
Our  Lord  is  not  proved  before  the  time  of  Constantine,  but  it  becomes 
common  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  fourth  century,  at  the  close  of 
which  it  is  often  flanked  by  a  and  u."  V.  op.  cit.,  pp.  19-20.  It  is 
worth  remembering  that  while  the  cross  was  used  as  a  symbol  in  pre- 
historic times  and  by  at  least  one  pagan  cult  of  the  fourth  century,  it 
was  not  commonly  employed  openly  as  an  independent  symbol  by  Chris- 
tians until  the  fifth  century.  As  for  its  pre-Christian  use,  Soc,  bk.  v, 
ch.  xvii,  and  Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xv,  relate  that  symbols  of  the  cross  were 
found  in  the  temple  of  Serapis  when  destroyed  by  Theodosius. 

Bury,  in  his  appendix  to  Gibbon,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  567,  has  some  in- 
teresting evidence  in  regard  to  the  monogram.  He  says  that  Rapp,  in 
his  paper,  Das  Labarum  oder  Sonnenkultus  (Jahrb.  des  Vereins  von 
Altertumsfreunden  in  Rheinldnde,  1866,  pp.  66  et  seq.)  showed  that  the 
monogram  appears  on  Greco-Bactrian  coins  of  the  second  and  first  cen- 
turies B.  C.  Bury  says :  "  It  appears  still  earlier  on  Tarentine  coins 
of  the  first  half  of  the  third  century.  It  is  not  clear  that  Constantine 
used  it  as  an  ambiguous  symbol;  nor  yet  is  there  a  well-attested  in- 
stance of  its  use  as  a  Christian  symbol  before  A.  D.  323.  Cf.  Brieger, 
in  his  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchen  Geschichte,  1881,  vol.  iv,  p.  201.  Several 
examples  of  the  Labarum  as  described  by  Eusebius  are  preserved ;  I 
may  refer  especially  to  one  on  a  Roman  sarcophagus  in  the  Lateran 
Museum."  Cf.  Burckhardt,  Die  Zeit  Constantins  des  Grossen,  pp.  349- 
350. 

An  excellent  illustrated  article  on  the  Christian  and  pre-Christian  use 
of  the  cross  in  various  forms  is  that  on  Cross,  in  the  Encyclopedia  of 
Religion  and  Ethics,  by  D'Alviella,  vol.  iv,  pp.  324  et  seq. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xxxi. 

J  Socrates'  birth  is  placed  at  379,  and  the  last  year  definitely  mentioned 
in  his  history  is  439.  Sozomen's  history  was  begun  about  the  year  443. 
Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  ii;  Soz.,  bk.  i,  chs.  iii-iv. 


28ll  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  23 

deities  whom  they  sought  to  propitiate;  but  that  his  own 
father,  who  had  renounced  the  various  religions  of  the 
Greeks,  had  passed  through  life  far  more  prosperously. 
Revolving  these  facts  in  his  mind,  and  in  a  state  of  uncer- 
tainty as  Constantine  was  marching  at  the  head  of  his 
troops,  he  saw  the  vision.  Socrates  added  that  the  standard 
in  the  form  of  a  cross  which  Constantine  prepared  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  divine  oracle,  was  preserved  in  the  palace 
"  even  to  the  present  time  ". 

Sozomen  adds  to  his  recital  of  the  emperor's  conversion 
his  own  idea  why  Constantine  used  the  labarum  in  the 
army: 

I  think  that  Constantine  changed  the  most  honorable  symbol 
of  Roman  power  into  the  sign  of  Christ,  chiefly  that  by  the 
habit  of  having  it  always  in  view  and  of  worshiping  it,  the 
soldiers  might  be  induced  to  abandon  their  ancient  form  of 
superstition  and  to  recognize  the  true  God  whom  the  emperor 
worshiped  as  their  leader  and  their  help  in  battle;  for  this 
symbol  was  always  borne  in  front  of  his  own  troops  and  was 
at  the  command  of  the  emperor,  carried  among  the  phalanxes 
in  the  thickest  of  the  fight  by  an  illustrious  band  of  spearmen 
of  whom  each  in  turn  took  the  standard  upon  his  shoulders 
and  paraded  it  through  the  ranks.1 

Lactantius,  the  contemporary2  of  Constantine,  has  a 
laconic  statement  about  the  appearance  of  the  Christian 
monogram  in  the  army,  but  no  word  about  any  conversion. 
He  declares  that  just  before  the  battle  of  the  Milvian 
Bridge  "  Constantine  was  directed  in  a  dream  to  cause  the 
heavenly  sign  to  be  delineated  on  the  shields  of  his  soldiers, 
and  so  to  proceed  to  battle.  He  did  as  he  had  been  com- 
manded, and  he  marked  on  their  shields  the  letter  X  with 

1  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  iv. 

2  Lactantius,  the  tutor  of  Crispus,  wrote  his  "  De  Mortibus  Persecu- 
torum  "  shortly  after  the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge. 


24  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [2&2 

a  perpendicular  line  drawn  through  it,  and  turned  round 
thus  at  the  top,  being  the  cipher  of  Christ  >£.1 

In  the  second  story  that  Eusebius  has  given  us  of  Con- 
stantine's  conversion,  the  miraculous  plays  a  large  part  in 
winning  the  emperor  to  faith  in  Christianity  on  the  eve  of 
his  battle  with  Maxentius,2  We  are  beyond  our  historical 
depth  when  we  try  to  evaluate  the  story  of  a  vision.  We, 
therefore,  turn  eagerly  to  the  historian  from  whom  we  hope 
to  receive  a  report  unbefogged  by  the  mists  of  Christian 
prejudice.  Alas !  although  there  is  no  shimmer  of  the 
supernatural  in  the  account  of  Zosimus  the  pagan,  yet  here 
too,  the  reasons  given  for  Constantine's  change  of  religion 
must  be  discounted.  His  story  differs  absolutely  both  as 
to  the  time  and  the  occasion  for  the  event,  from  the  tale 
common  to  the  ecclesiastical  historians.  Let  -us  hear  his 
account  of  the  change  of  religion  and  the  events  which  led 
up  to  it. 

Now  that  the  whole  empire  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  Con- 
stantine,  he  no  longer  concealed  his  evil  disposition  and  vicious 
inclinations,  but  acted  as  he  pleased,  without  control.  He  in- 
deed used  the  ancient  worship  of  his  country;  though  not  so 
much  out  of  honour  or  veneration  as  of  necessity.  Therefore 
he  believed  the  soothsayers,  who  were  expert  in  their  art,  as 
men  who  predicted  the  truth  concerning  all  the  great  actions 
which  he  ever  performed.  But  when  he  came  to  Rome,  he 
was  filled  with  pride  and  arrogance.  He  resolved  to  begin  his 
impious  actions  at  home.  For  he  put  to  death  his  son  Crispus, 
styled   (as  I  mentioned)    Caesar,  on  suspicion  of  debauching 

1  Lact,  op.  cit.,  ch.  xliv. 

*  Pagans  as  well  as  Christians  believed  that  miraculous  assistance  had 
been  given  to  Constantine  in  his  combat  with  Maxentius.  Cf.  Incerti 
Panegyr.,  ch.  ii,  p.  1406,  par.  5;  and  again  ch.  ix,  par.  1,  "  Haec  omnia 
Imperator  cum  cogitares,  scires,  videres,  nee  te  paterna  gravitas  nee 
tua  natura  temerarium  esse  pateretur,  die,  quaeso,  quid  in  consilium, 
nisi  divinum  numen,  habuisti?"  Cf.  Nazarii  Panegyricus,  ch.  xiv  for 
an  account  of  heavenly  legions  at  the  battle. 


283]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  2$ 

his  mother-in-law  Fausta,  without  any  regard  to  the  ties  of 
nature.  And  when  his  own  mother  Helena  expressed  much 
sorrow '  for  this  atrocity,  lamenting  the  young  man's  death 
with  great  bitterness,  Constantine,  under  pretence  of  comfort- 
ing her,  applied  a  remedy  worse  than  the  disease.  For  causing 
a  bath  to  be  heated  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  he  shut  up 
Fausta  in  it,  and  a  short  time  after  took  her  out  dead.  Of 
which  his  conscience  accusing  him,  as  also  of  violating  his 
oath,  he  went  to  the  priests  1  to  be  purified  from  his  crime. 
But  they  told  him  there  was  no  kind  of  lustration  that  was 
sufficient  to  clear  him  of  such  enormity.  A  Spaniard  named 
/Egyptius,  very  familiar  with  the  court  ladies,  being  at  Rome 
happened  to  fall  into  converse  with  Constantine,  and  assured 
him  that  Christian  doctrine  would  teach  him  how  to  cleanse 
himself  from  all  his  offenses;  and  that  they  who  received  it 
were  immediately  absolved  from  all  their  sins.  Constantine 
had  no  sooner  heard  this  than  he  easily  believed  what  was 
told  him,  and  forsaking  the  rites  of  his  country,  received  those 
which  JEgyptius  offered  him;  and  for  the  first  instance  of  his 
impiety,  suspected  the  truth  of  divination  .  .  .  and  applied 
himself  to  the  abolishing  of  the  practice.2 

Sozomen 3   has   a   noteworthy   critique   of   the  Zosimus 
story. 

It  appears  to  me  that  this  story  was  the  invention  of  persons 
who  desired  to  vilify  the  Christian  religion.  Crispus,  on 
whose  account  it  is  said  that  Constantine  required  purifica- 
tion, did  not  die  till  the  twentieth  year  of  his  father's  reign; 

1  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  v,  says  he  is  reported  to  have  inquired  of  the  philoso- 
pher Sopater. 

2  Zosimus,  History  of  the  Roman  Empire,  bk.  ii,  pp.  51  et  seq.  For 
a  critique  of  the  legend  of  Constantine's  baptism  by  Silvester,  v.  Du- 
chesne, Liber  PontiUcalis,  bk.  i,  Introduction,  p.  cvii.  Cf.  Malalas, 
Chronographia,  in  Corpus  Byzantinae  Historiae,  vol.  iv,  bk.  xiii,  for 
the  story  of  Constantine's  baptism  by  Silvester  without  any  mention 
of  a  plague. 

3  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  v. 


25  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [284 

he  had  the  second  place  in  the  empire  and  bore  the  name  of 
Caesar  and  many  laws  framed  with  his  sanction  in  favor  of 
Christianity  are  still  extant.  That  this  was  the  case  can  be 
proved  by  referring  to  the  dates  affixed  to  these  laws,  and  to 
the  lists  of  the  legislators.  It  does  not  appear  likely  that 
Sopater  had  any  intercourse  with  Constantine  whose  govern- 
ment was  then  centered  in  the  regions  near  the  ocean  and  the 
Rhine ;  for  his  dispute  with  Maxentius,  the  governor  of  Italy, 
had  created  so  much  dissention  in  the  Roman  dominions,  that 
it  was  then  no  easy  matter  to  dwell  in  Gaul,  in  Britain,  or  in 
the  neighboring  countries  in  which  it  is  universally  admitted 
Constantine  embraced  the  religion  of  the  Christians  previous 
to  his  war  with  Maxentius  and  prior  to  his  return  to  Rome 
and  Italy ;  and  this  is  evidence  by  the  dates  of  the  laws  which 
he  enacted  in  favor  of  religion.  But  even  granting  that  So- 
pater chanced  to  meet  the  emperor  or  that  he  had  epistolary 
correspondence  with  him,  it  cannot  be  imagined  the  philoso- 
pher was  ignorant  that  Hercules,  the  son  of  Alcmena,  ob- 
tained purification  at  Athens  by  the  celebration  of  the  mys- 
teries of  Ceres  after  the  murder  of  his  children,  and  by 
Sphitus,  his  guest  and  friend.  That  the  Greeks  held  that  puri- 
fication from  guilt  of  this  nature  could  be  obtained  is  obvious 
from  the  instance  I  have  just  alleged,  and  he  is  a  false  calum- 
niator who  represents  that  Sopater  taught  the  contrary.  I 
cannot  admit  the  possibility  of  the  philosopher's  having  been 
ignorant  of  these  facts;  for  he  was  at  that  period  esteemed 
the  most  learned  man  in  Greece. 

Sozomen  here  has  called  attention  to  several  of  the  ob- 
jections that  prevent  our  accepting  Zosimus'  tale.  On  the 
face  of  it,  Zosimus'  reasoning  is  specious.  At  bottom,  how- 
ever, there  may  be  some  truth  in  the  supposition  that  Con- 
stantine found  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sin,  ease  of  conscience  he  could  not  obtain  from  the 
pagan  cults  with  which  he  was  acquainted.     Historians1 

'  Victor    Schultze    in    article    Constantine    in    New    Schaff-Hersog 


285]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  2J 

who  hold  that  Constantine  had  become  a  Christian  by  312, 
whether  before  or  after  he  left  Gaul  for  his  campaign, 
against  Maxentius,  find  a  fundamental  difficulty  in  accept- 
ing Zosimus'  story,  since  he  places  the  date  of  Constantine's 
conversion  as  late  as  326,  the  time  of  the  deaths  of  Crispus 
and  Fausta.  This  difficulty,  however,  should  not  be  so  ser- 
ious for  the  historians  who  hold  that  Constantine  was  not  a 
convert  to  Christianity  before  his  conquest  of  Licinius  in 
324-x 

Encyclopedia  of  Religions  Knowledge,  vol.  iii,  p.  250;  also  in  his  Ge- 
schichte  des  Untergangs  des  Grie chisch-rdmischen  Heidentums.  pp.  33- 
34;  Boissier,  La  Fin  du  Paganisme,  vol.  i,  pp.  23  et  seq.;  Allard,  Le 
Christianisme  et  L'Empire  Roman  de  Neron  a  Theodose,  p.  147;  Du- 
chesne, L'Histoire  ancienne  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  57 ;  Firth,  op.  cit.,  p. 
104;  v.  Julian's  Caesars,  p.  290.  "Constantine  found  his  son  installed 
there  (near  Wantoness),  and  crying  to  all-comers,  'Approach  boldly, 
corrupters,  sacrilegious  murderers  and  infamous  men;  I  will  instantly 
make  you  pure  again  by  bathing  you  in  this  water ;  and  whoever  again 
falls  back  into  the  same  crime,  I  will  make  pure  again,  as  before,  if 
he  strikes  his  breast  and  beats  his  head.' "  Also  Seeck,  Die  Geschichte 
des  Untergangs  der  Antiken  Welt,  vol.  i,  p.  62. 

1  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  defeat  of  Licinius 
occurred  323  or  324.  H.  D.  Jones,  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  vol. 
vi,  pp.  988  et  seq.,  believes  that  formulae  employed  in  dating  Egyptian 
papyri  seem  to  point  to  324  as  the  date  of  the  defeat  rather  than  323. 
Seeck,  too,  accepts  324. 

Brieger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  165  et  seq.,  believes  that  Constantine  did  not  be- 
come a  Christian  suddenly.  He  thinks  that  Constantine,  even  after 
the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge,  worshiped  a  powerful  deity  which 
sometimes  was  identical  with  the  Christian  God,  sometimes  with  the 
Sun-god ;  and  that  he  went  through  various  phases  of  religious  change 
which  culminated  in  his  baptism  just  before  his  death.  He  declares 
that  only  after  the  conquest  of  Licinius  did  Constantine  confess  his 
determination  to  be  the  servant  of  the  God  who  had  led  him  to  victory. 
Beugnot,  too,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  59  et  seq.,  does  not  believe  that 
Constantine  was  a  Christian  in  312.  He  insists  that  only  after 
his  defeat  of  Licinius  did  Constantine  definitely  join  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Cf.  Marquardt,  Le  Culte  chez  les  Romains,  vol.  i, 
p.  139:  "324  Constantine  pronounced  for  Christianity.  Moreover,  the 
emperor  did  not  become  a   Christian  himself  and  did  not  decree  the 


2g  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [286 

However  students  may  differ  as  to  the  date  of  Constan- 
tine's  conversion,  they  must  agree  in  rejecting  the  statement 
of  Zosimus  that  it  was  after  the  deaths  of  Constantine's 
wife  and  son  that  he  first  impiously  "  suspected  the  truth 
of  divination  ".  As  a  matter  of  fact  as  early  as  319,1  Con- 
stantine  had  forbidden  private  divination;  and  in  321  or 
324,2  when  Constantine  and  Crispus  were  both  consuls,  they 
had  passed  a  decree  against  harmful  magic.  Furthermore, 
we  know  that  Constantine  must  long  have  felt  sceptical  re- 
garding the  value  of  some  divinations,  for  he  had  disre- 
garded the  omens  taken  before  his  battle  with  Maxentius, 
and  had  proceeded  on  his  way,  in  spite  of  the  warnings.* 
Constantine's  relation  to  the  whole  question  of  divination 
will  be  treated  later.     .  *"'  ' 

These  are  the  earliest  accounts  of  Constantine's  change 
of  religious  attitude.  We  have  seen  that  there  is  diversity 
of  opinion  among  historians  as  to  when  this  change  oc- 
curred. There  is  equal  discord  of  views  in  regard  to  the 
identity  of  the  deity  upon  whom  Constantine  called  before 
his  battle  with  Maxentius.  Some  scholars  contend  that  the 
god  whose  protection  Constantine  sought  in  his  campaign 

abolition  of  paganism.  Constantine  never  broke  entirely  with  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Roman  religion.  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encyclopaedie  des 
classichen  Altertums  Wissenschaft,  vol.  iv,  pp.  102 1  et  seq.,  contends 
that  between  the  conquest  of  Maxentius  and  Licinius,  Constantine  was 
content  with  assuring  a  legal  position  and  certain  privileges  to  Chris- 
tianity; but  that  from  324  he  departed  from  paganism.  In  proof  of 
this  view  he  refers  to  the  emperor's  part  in  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  the 
Christian  character  of  the  inscriptions  on  the  later  coins,  and  Constan- 
tine's baptism  just  before  his  death. 

1  Codex  Theodosianus,  edition  Mommsen,  ix— 16— 1,  see  infra,  p.  162 
for  text.     Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi— 10—  1. 

2  C.  Th.,  ix— 16 — 3  v.,  infra,  p.  163  for  text. 

3  Incerti  Panegyricus  Constantine  Augusto  Dictus,  ch.  2,  p.  1406,  par.  4. 
"  Contra  consilia  hominum,  contra  aruspicum  monita  ipse  per  temet 
liberandae  urbis  tempus  venisse  sentires?" 


287]  CONSTANTINE'S  PERSONAL  RELIGION  29 

against  Maxentius  was  not  the  god  of  the  Christians  but  the 
all-ruling  spirit  of  the  deists. x 

We  cannot  go  further  into  this  complicated  problem.2 

1  H.  Gwatkin,  in  the  Cambridge  Mediaeval  History,  vol.  i,  p.  4,  de- 
clares that  Constantine,  although  clear  about  monotheism,  was  not  so 
clear  about  the  difference  between  Christ  and  the  unconquered  Sun. 
Richter  (Das  Westrbmische  Reich,  pp.  84  et  seq.)  holds  him  a  mono- 
theist  to  the  time  of  his  death.  Burckhardt,  op.  cit.,  thinks  it  possible 
that  the  emperor  may  have  confused  Christ  with  the  Sun-god  and  thought 
he  was  one  of  many  gods.  Burckhardt  says  a  monogram  like  ^ 
was  in  use  on  Oriental  standards  in  pre-Christian  times  as  an  abbre- 
viation for  the  Sun ;  and  that  "  soli  invicto  comiti "  was  used  on  the 
coins  until  Constantine's  death. 

1  Schiller,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  206  et  seq.,  has  carefully  examined  the 
coinage  of  Constantine's  reign  in  hopes  of  discovering  something  to  aid 
in  judging  the  emperor's  religious  policy.  He  found  from  the  Western 
mints  coins  bearing  the  figures  of  (a)  Mars,  (b)  the  Genius  of  the 
Roman  People,  and  (c)  the  Sun-god.  The  coins  with  the  figure  of 
Jupiter  were  not  struck  in  the  West,  but  in  the  mints  of  Licinius. 
Schiller  asserts  that  the  figures  of  Mars  and  the  Genius  of  the  Roman 
people  were  not  stamped  on  the  coins  of  Constantine  after  the  war 
with  Maxentius,  and  that  by  317  coins  with  those  figures  had  disap- 
peared. The  image  of  the  Sun-god  was  used  a  little  later,  but  by  323 
it,  too,  had  ceased  to  be  employed  on  the  coins.  We  may  therefore  say, 
declares  Schiller,  that  from  315  to  323  the  pagan  figures  were  disap- 
pearing from  Constantine's  coinage  and  their  place  was  being  taken 
by  such  neutral  inscriptions  as  beata  tranquilitas ,  gloria  exercitus. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  reign,  copper  coins  were  issued  on  whose 
reverse  were  shown  two  soldiers  with  the  monogram  ^" .  Among  the 
references  in  the  sources  that  depict  Constantine  as  a  Christian,  vide 
Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii ;  Eus.,  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  ii.  "  For  truly  he  main- 
tained a  continual  testimony  to  the  Christ  of  God  with  all  boldness 
and  before  all  men,  and  so  far  was  he  from  shrinking  from  an  open 
profession  of  the  Christian  name  that  he  rather  regarded  this  as  his 
highest  honor,  now  impressing  on  his  face  the  salutary  sign  and  now 
glorying  in  it  as  the  trophy  which  had  led  him  on  to  victory."  Also 
Eus.,  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xxxii,  and  bk.  iv,  ch.  xiii,  giving  the  letter  to  the 
king  of  the  Persians  in  which  Constantine  avows  his  faith  in  Chris- 
tianity; ch.  xxix,  in  which  the  emperor  indulges  in  harsh  language 
against  paganism.  According  to  Eus.,  V.  C,  bk.  iv.  ch.  lvi,  when  on 
his  expedition  to  Persia  he  carried  in  his  train  a  church-like  tent  in 
which  he  might  offer  prayers  with  the  bishops  who  accompanied  him. 


|0 


/ 1  >/  HR  1 1  h  I  A/  [JNDlili  <  ( '-v.  TAN  I  INIi 


|  •:•::; 


ii  would  seem  from  the  evidence  oJ  oui  Bources  thai  Con 

;,l.llil  Hie    (|i(|     c     pel  KIM  c    some    (  1 1 . 1 1 1 ;  •  t  -    ()|     I  el  ij  ;  n  n  r,    .illihhlc 

111  the  veai  ,;i  i,  lull  |ui1  whal  thai  change  was,  ii  is  impos 

•il >i<-  !<>  say     ii  he  became  the  b ire  Christian  thai  Euse 

bius  makes  i ni,  there  are  certainly  Borne  difficull  prob 

[ems  to  solve  in  connection  with  his  private  life  later  in  his 
reign     ^i  el ,  us  we  said  si  the  itart,  we  cannol  judge  the  re 
ligion  "i  .in  emperoi  eis  we  can  thai  ol  s  private  Individual 

<  onstantine  may  have  believed  liimseli  s  Christian  from 

the  Mih  Ian   Bi  idgi  .  alt! gh  hi    had  still  i«»  acquire  the 

true  and  wisei  meaning  oi  the  religion  The  facl  thai  he 
was  baptized  « >i il \-  shortly  before  he  died  dues  not  make 
foi  oi  againsl  out  point  oi  view  ii  was,  we  musl  howevei 
recollect,  no  unusual  practice  in  that  age  foi  devout  Chris 
tians  iIimMiIn  to  postpone  enjoying  the  sacrament  oi  bap 
tism  until  death's  approach  in  ordei  to  profil  by  its  undis 

<  ounted  value  ' 

rhis  study,  however,  is  concerned  only  incidentally  with 
the  |)i«>iiiriu  oi  Constantine's  private  charactei      rhe  prob 
ifin  before  us  is  rathei  to  determine  hia  attitude  towards  the 
religious  ol  the  empire,  as  displayed  in  his  public  policj 
Even  here,  however,  we  shall  find  the  sources  nol  -ii  one, 

.Hid  often,  almost  ;is  insnllicienl  as  those  which  heal    upon 

his  pi  ivate  '•  fe 

<  /  I'ii-.  .  H  i'  ,  \'i  i  k,  ,  1 1  kI  .  /  i, M  ha  i ' /.!//(',  cii.  ii  ,  :  mm  .  b)i  i.  .  1 1  in  , 
i'  untpluii  '  ii'ii-  Sophistarum,  ch  Ivl  w<  muit  remembei  that  i  Ion 
•(.inline  educated  hli  children  ni  Chrlttlnni  mul  ilmi  Mir  pii^im  lutinn 

•    aerated  lili  memorj      \  whol ol  Constantine'i  ncti  might  be 

cltad  to  prove  that  faith  In  I  Itrintianity  Animated  them  \ n , ,  .1 
in'..  Orat,,  '  ii  v  pai  5,  wrltci  "  No  more,  ai  In  formal  timet,  ti  the 
babbling  "i  Impiou  men  heard  In  the  imperial  palace;  but  prie  ti  ftnd 
pioui  wonhiperi  ol  God  togcthei  celebrate  hli  majeitj  with  royal 
in  inn-,  ol  pi  nil  1 

1  Such  baptitmi  ware  called  "cllnh  baptlimi."     rhe  Catholii  Church 
which   iccepti    ii  ■  at  the  date  oi  Comtantine'i  convenlon,  Ii  erecting 
.1  church  on  the  lite  oi  the  battle  oi  the  Milviaw  Bridge  to  comnv  inoi 
.ii,-  iii<-  lOooth  .11 1  hi \  ci  mi  v  oi  that  event 


CHAPTER  M 
Edicts  on  I  oleration 

vVnn  the  battle  oi  the  Milvian  Bridge  are  connected  no! 
only  the  puzzling  speculations  regarding  Constantine'    n 
ligion   but    'ilso   Ihc   he^inuiiif;s  <>i    In     U^islal ion    foi    the 
i  in  isl  i . 1 1 1 • . 

Before  considering  this  legislation,  however,  il  is  evident 
thai  we  must  determine,  as  fai  as  possible,  the  position  <>i 
the  Christian  Church  throughout  the  Roman  Empire  in  the 
vMi  ;i',  when  Constantine  overthrew  the  rule  oi  Maxen 
i iir.  in  I i.i I v  wv  i leei i  i"  know  the  legal  position  oJ  I  hris 
i  i.i i ni  y ;  wi i.i i  relation  il  bore  to  the  other  cults  oi  the  state; 

wli.il   corporate  rights  and   privileges  il   possessed,  ;i 1 1< I  how 

Ear  its  clergy  and  laity  were  free  to  fulfill  their  religious 
obligations  To  understand  all  this,  we  must  glance  .n  the 
history  oi  ih<-  ( Hmreli  during  the  preceding  decade 

Two   years  before   the  close  oi    Diocletian's  reign   the 
Roman  government  began  its  most  thorough  going  attempt 

I"    exterminate    <  In  r,l  i.nnl  y  '       Il    <\r<i<-t<\,    llul    churches 

were  everywhere  to  be  destroyed  and  the  scriptures  burned 
while  Christians  holding  positions  oi  honoi  should  suffei 
<lej'T.'id;ii ion.-'    Then,  shortly  after,  anothei  edict  :  ordered 

1  The    .-il.',  oi    ff nil    I'.dictn   published   by    Diocletian    tgtinit    the 
•  hriitiani  hai  in. i  been  handed  <l"wn  to  ui  In  legal  form     Thi  pro 
•i  ,  however,  have  been  preserved  In  the  writing  <>i  KiiHcbiiiN  and 

i ..i<  i.HiiiH.  Imi.,  //  /■ ,  hi  viii,  ih  ii,  and  M'liivi:  n\  PolttHnt,  <  ii 
iii ;  i  ..ii  i .  op  ii/.'  hi   i  ii  and    111 

7  i'ii  it  Edit  i  "i  i  >i'"  I'li.ui  Bui  .a   /■  .  bV    ''in,  eh.  1     I  ■■><  I   op  <  ii 

i  h     in 

'  '  ' I   !■  < 1 1 ■  t  Of  ]  'i'"  I-  li.m   I'  Ul  ,  //    /'  ,  U        hi    -  Ii    i       I    i.  I    oP    <  it 

■  Ii       in 

i8p]  |] 


32  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [290 

the  imprisonment  of  all  Church  officials,  who  were  later  1 
allowed  to  purchase  their  release  by  sacrificing.  Finally,  a 
general  decree  was  published,  requiring  "  that  all  people 
should  sacrifice  at  once  in  the  different  cities,  and  offer  liba- 
tions to  the  idols  ".2 

These  edicts  were  proclaimed  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land.  In  Gaul  and  Britain,  however,  the 
mild  disposition  or  the  religious  proclivities  of  Constantius 
Chlorus  seem  to  have  tempered  their  severity.  There  is  a 
question  as  to  whether  Constantius  forbade  Christian  as- 
semblies or  destroyed  churches.3  Certainly  he  did  not  per- 
secute the  Christians  for  their  failure  to  conform  to  pagan- 
ism, and  he  allowed  them  to  remain  in  the  army  and  about 
the  court.  In  Italy,  Africa,  and  Spain,  which  were  under 
Maximian's  rule,  the  number  of  martyrs  was  not  small. 
It  was,  however,  in  the  East,  that  the  provisions  of  the 
edicts  were  most  strictly  enforced;  partly  because  of  the 
greater  fanaticism  and  numbers  of  the  Christians  there,  and 
partly  because  of  the  immediate  presence  of  Galerius.  This 
Caesar  of  Diocletian,  some  contemporaries 4  believed, 
prompted  the  issuing  of  the  whole  series  of  edicts  against 
the  Christians;  and  when  he  became  Augustus,  after  Dio- 

1  Third  Edict  of  Diocletian,  ibid. 

2  Fourth  Edict  of  Diocletian  Mart.  Pal,  Lact.  op.  cit.,  chs.xvi  and  xvii, 
which  made  of  Christianity  a  religio  illicita  for  the  first  time  since  the 
toleration  edict  of  Gallienus. 

3  "  He  took  not  the  smallest  part  in  the  war  against  us,  but  preserved 
the  pious  that  were  under  him  unharmed  and  unabused.  He  neither 
threw  down  the  church  buildings,  nor  did  he  devise  anything  else 
against  us."  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xiii.  Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  i,  chs.  xiii-xvi, 
and  Lact.,  op.  cit.,  ch.  xv. 

4  Cf.  Lact.  op.  cit.,  ch.  xi.  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xxii.  "  He  is  re- 
ported to  have  been  the  original  author  of  the  misery  of  the  persecu- 
tion, having  endeavored  long  before  the  movement  of  the  other  emperors 
to  turn  from  the  faith  the  Christians  in  the  army,  .  .  .  and  finally  in- 
citing his  partners  in  the  empire  to  the  general  persecution." 


2gli  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  33 

cletian's  abdication  in  305,  he  persevered  in  the  policy  of 
persecution,  until  the  course  of  events  made  it  seem  ad- 
visable to  substitute  a  policy  of  toleration  towards  this 
troublesome  sect.  In  311,  the  pagan  gods,  whom  he  had 
supplicated,  had  failed  to  give  him  relief  from  the  agony 
of  the  malady  from  which  he  was  suffering.1  He  con- 
cluded, therefore,  to  bargain  for  the  prayers  of  Christians, 
who  might  obtain  from  their  God  the  bodily  healing  he 
sought.  Accordingly,  Galerius  proceeded  to  publish  an 
edict,  granting  toleration  to  the  Christians.2  The  document 
was  published  in  the  name  of  Galerius  and  of  his  colleagues, 
Constantine  and  Licinius.  Maximian's  name  does  not  ap- 
pear upon  the  copies  of  the  edict  which  have  come  down  to 
us.3  This  law  is  of  more  than  incidental  interest.  From 
it,  rather  than  from  the  later  legislation  of  Constantine,  we 
must  date  the  line  of  tolerant  edicts  which  ultimately  re- 
sulted in  establishing  Christianity  as  the  state  religion.  It 
runs  as  follows : 

Amongst  our  other  measures  for  the  advantage  of  the  Em- 
pire, we  have  hitherto  endeavored  to  bring  all  things  into  con- 
formity with  the  ancient  laws  and  public  order  of  the  Romans. 
We  have  been  especially  anxious  that  even  the  Christians,  who 
have  abandoned  the  religion  of  their  ancestors,  should  return 
to  reason.  For  they  have  fallen,  we  know  not  how,  into  such 
perversity  and  folly  that,  instead  of  adhering  to  those  ancient 
institutions,4  which  possibly  their  own  forefathers  established, 

1  Lact.,  op.  cit.,  ch.  xxxiii ;  cf.  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xvii. 

2  For  text  vide  Lact.,  ch.  xxxiv  and  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xvii. 

3  Hiille,  Die  Toleranserlasse  romischer  Kaiser  fur  das  Christentum 
bis  cum  Jahre  313,  p.  48,  believes  that  his  name  stood  originally  in  the 
edict.  Maxentius  was  never  recognized  as  emperor  by  any  but  his 
father  Maximian. 

4  v.  McGiffert's  note  3,  page  339  for  the  interpretation  of  this  phrase. 
He  believes  it  refers,  not  to  Christianity,  but  to  paganism. 


34  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [292 

they  have  arbitrarily  made  laws  of  their  own  and  collected 
together  various  peoples  from  various  quarters. 

After  the  publication,  on  our  part,  of  an  order  commanding 
the  Christians  to  return  to  the  observance  of  the  ancient  cus- 
toms, many  of  them,  it  is  true,  submitted  in  view  of  the 
danger,  while  many  others  suffered  death.  Nevertheless,  since 
many  of  them  have  continued  to  persist  in  their  opinions  and 
we  see  that  in  the  present  situation  they  neither  duly  adore 
and  venerate  the  gods  nor  yet  worship  the  God  of  the  Chris- 
tians, we,  with  our  wonted  clemency,  have  judged  it  wise  to 
extend  a  pardon  even  to  those  men  and  permit  them  once  more 
to  become  Christians  and  re-establish  their  places  of  meeting; 
in  such  manner,  however,  that  they  shall  in  no  way  offend 
against  good  order.1  We  propose  to  notify  the  magistrates  in 
another  mandate  in  regard  to  the  course  that  they  should 
pursue. 

Wherefore  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  Christians,  in  view 
of  our  clemency,  to  pray  to  their  God  for  our  welfare,  for  that 
of  the  Empire  and  for  their  own,  so  that  the  Empire  may 
remain  intact  in  all  its  parts,  and  that  they  themselves  may 
live  safely  in  their  habitations.2 

This  document  gave  freedom  of  worship  to  men  who 
were  already  Christians.  It  failed  to  state,  specifically,  that 
all  men  were  free  to  adopt  the  religion  of  Jesus,  although 
this  permission  may  by  implication  have  been  intended. 
Christians  were  allowed  to  hold  assemblies,  but  there  was 
no  provision  for  restoring  property  that  had  been  seized 
from  Christian  individuals  or  corporations,  during  the  eight 
preceding  years,  nor  was  there  any  mention  of  recompense 
for  suffering  or  losses  incurred  through  the  persecution  for 
religion's  sake.    The  employment  of  the  specified  toleration 

1  McGiffert,  note  9  to  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  viii,  ch.  xvii. 

2  Translation  from  Robinson's  Readings  in  European  History,  vol.  i, 
p.  22. 


2q3]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  35 

appeared  precarious,  for  it  would  seem  that  an  unfriendly 
magistrate  in  a  hostile  community  might  forbid  Christians 
from  holding  assemblies,  on  the  pretext  that  such  gatherings 
led  to  popular  disturbances,  which  created  offenses  against 
good  order.  The  historian  must  ever  regret  that  Galerius' 
instructions  to  his  magistrates  have  not  been  preserved; 
from  them  we  might  have  been  able  to  understand  exactly 
how  far  the  freedom  of  the  Christians  was  limited. 

To  judge  from  the  accounts  of  Eusebius  and  Lactantius, 
Constantine  and  Licinius  seem  to  have  lived  up  to  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  this  law.1  Maxentius,  also,  although  fail- 
ing to  publish  the  decree  in  due  order,  permitted  freedom  of 
worship  to  the  Christians  in  the  territories  of  Italy  and 
Africa. 

Maximin  Daja,2  who  ruled  the  East,3  pursued  a  peculiar 
course  toward  the  Christians,4  Instead  of  promulgating 
Galerius'  edict,  as  custom  demanded,  he  verbally  ordered  his 
pretorian  prefect  to  cease  persecuting  the  Christians,  and  to 
advise  magistrates  of  cities  to  do  the  same.  The  circular  ° 
sent  out  by  the  prefect  contains  nothing  resembling  the  pro- 
visions of  Galerius'  edict  which  gave  to  Christians  indi- 
vidual toleration  and  recognized  their  religion  as  religio 
licita.  It  states  simply  that  persecutions  are  to  stop.  The 
difference  between  the  spirit  of  this  rescript  and  that  of  the 
edict  of  Galerius  was  not,  indeed,  at  first  perceived  by  the 
Christians  of  the  Orient,  who  rejoiced  in  the  belief  that  full 

1  Lact,  ch.  xxiv  declares  that  Constantine  protected  the  Christians 
directly  after  his  father's  death,  when  he  assumed  the  government  in 
the  West. 

2  Maximin  Daja  was  appointed  Caesar  by  Diocletian  at  the  time  of 
his  abdication,  May,  305,  at  the  same  time  that  he  created  Galerius  em- 
peror. Maximin's  name  as  that  of  emperor  appears  on  coins  at  the 
same  time  that  those  of  Licinius  and  Constantine  do.  Vide  Schiller, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  178.     Cf.  McGiffert,  p.  358,  note  1. 

3  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  i.  4  Ibid.  6  Ibid. 


36  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [294 

toleration  was  accorded  them.  But  this  happiness  lasted 
not  quite  six  months.  Galerius'  death  followed  shortly 
after  the  publication  of  his  edict  of  toleration,  greatly  in- 
creasing Maximin's  territory  and  power.1  The  Augustus 
of  the  Orient  again  began  to  show  his  animosity  towards 
the  Christians  by  denying  them  certain  privileges  of  assem- 
bly.2 He  seems  also  to  have  incited,  artfully,  his  pagan  sub- 
jects to  petition  that  the  Christians  be  exiled.  Finally  a 
bloody  persecution  set  in.3  It  was  while  engaged  in  thus 
actively  persecuting  the  Christians  that  this  emperor  at- 
tempted to  regalvanize  paganism. 

He  introduced  a  new  mode  of  government  in  things  respecting 
religion  and  for  each  city  he  created  a  high  priest,  chosen  from 
among  the  persons  of  most  distinction.  The  office  of  these 
men  was  to  make  daily  sacrifice  to  all  their  gods  and  with  the 
aid  of  former  priests  to  prevent  the  Christians  from  erecting 
churches  or  from  worshiping  God  either  publicly  or  in  private ; 
and  he  authorized  them  to  compel  the  Christians  to  sacrifice  to 
idols,  and  on  their  refusal,  to  bring  them  before  the  civil  mag- 
istrate ;  and  as  if  this  had  not  been  enough,  in  every  province 
he  established  a  superintendent  priest,  one  of  chief  eminence 
in  the  state,  and  commanded  that  all  those  priests  newly  insti- 
tuted should  appear  in  white  habits,  that  being  the  most  hon- 
orable distinction  of  dress.4 

1  Galerius'  edict  was  drawn  up  after  March  1,  311  and  published  in 
Nicomedia,  April  30;  therefore  this  change  of  policy  must  have  begun 
in  October  or  thereabouts. 

*  Meetings  in  cemeteries — v.  Lact.,  ch.  xxxvi. 

3  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  i.  The.  rescript  of  Maximin  in  answer  to 
the  petitions  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tyre  against  the  Christians  is  given 
in  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  xvii.     Cf.  Lact.,  ch.  xxxvii. 

4  Lact.,  ch.  xxxvi.  cf.  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  iv.  This  attempt  of 
Maximin  to  organize  paganism  on  the  lines  of  the  Christian  Church 
and  to  endow  paganism  and  its  priests  with  more  positive  duties  proves 
him  the  forerunner  of  Julian  in  his  religious  administration.  Like 
Julian's  later  scheme  the  attempt  was  futile,  but  was  in  itself  a  con- 
fession of  the  power  of  Christian  ecclesiastical  organization. 


295j  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  37 

It  is  evident,  in  view  of  this  rehearsal  of  facts,  that  in  312, 
Christianity  was  treated  as  religio  licita  save  in  the  lands 
under  Maximin's  dominion.  There  had  however  been  no 
enactment  granting  corporate  rights  to  the  Church  such  as 
those  enjoyed  in  other  cults.  No  definite  statement  had 
been  made  by  the  government  providing  for  reinstating  the 
degraded  Christian  officials ;  nor  was  any  system  of  recom- 
pense instituted  for  pecuniary  losses  or  other  sufferings. 
Galerius  merely  allowed  Christians  to  follow  their  religion, 
provided  they  did  nothing  contrary  to  the  law.  Such,  in 
brief,  was  the  situation  of  Christianity,  when  Constantine 
defeated  Maxentius  at  the  Milvian  Bridge,  October,  312. 

Maxentius  perished  in  the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge, 
and  following  that  victory,  Constantine  was  welcomed  as  a 
saviour  and  benefactor  by  the  Senate  and  the  people  of 
Rome,  who  dedicated  to  his  honor  the  arch  that  bears  his 
name.1  We  saw  above  2  how  he  caused  his  statue  with  the 
cross  to  be  set  up  in  Rome.3  According  to  Eusebius,  he 
then  proceeded  to  draw  up  a  decree,  providing  complete 
toleration  for  Christians.4    The  statement  runs  as  follows : 

1  For  an  interesting  archeological  discussion  of  the  origin  of  the 
Arch  of  Constantine,  see  Frothingham's  articles  in  the  Century  for 
January,  1913,  "The  Mystery  of  the  Arch  of  Constantine  Unveiled." 
For  a  discussion  of  the  arch  and  its  inscription,  see  Lanciani,  Pagan 
and  Christian  Rome,  pp.  20  et  seq. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  18. 

3  Brieger  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1880,  p.  45  thought  that  in  this  case  the 
passage  in  H.  E.  had  been  copied  from  V.  C.  Schultze,  however,  (ibid., 
1885,  vol.  vii,  p.  343)  has  shown  that  Eusebius  mentioned  the  statue 
in  question  in  his  speech  at  Tyre  in  314,  (H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  iv,  par.  xvi) 
and  this  adds  considerable  weight  to  the  evidence.  For  full  treatment 
of  the  story  of  the  statue  with  the  cross,  see  Schultze,  "Die  romische 
Bilds'dule  mit  dem  Kreuze,"  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1885. 

4  An  inscription  shows  that  Constantine  was  in  Rome  on  the  day  after 
the  battle.  Vide  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  ed.  Mommsen,  vol. 
i,  p.  352.  He  remained  there  about  three  or  four  months.  Cf.  Zo- 
simus,  bk.  ii,  p.  44;  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix.  and  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xli. 


38  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [296 

And  after  this  both  Constantine  himself  and  with  him  Lici- 
nius,  who  had  not  yet  been  seized  by  the  madness  into  which 
he  later  fell,  praising  God  as  the  author  of  all  their  blessings, 
with  one  will  and  mind,  drew  up  a  full  and  most  complete 
decree  in  behalf  of  the  Christians,  and  sent  an  account  of  the 
wonderful  things  done  for  them  by  God  and  of  the  victory 
over  the  tyrant,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  decree  itself,  to 
Maximinus,  who  still  ruled  over  the  nations  of  the  East,  and 
pretended  friendship  toward  them. 

This  text,  along  with  a  later  statement 1  of  Eusebius  in  the 
same  chapter,  following  the  citation  of  the  letter  of  toler- 
ation written  by  Maximin  to  his  prefect  Sabinus,  has  been 
regarded  as  establishing  the  fact  that  Constantine  and  Lici- 
nius  issued  an  edict  at  Rome  on  behalf  of  the  Christians. 

Its  existence  is  accepted  by  Tillemont,  Beugnot,  Chastel, 
De  Broglie,  Boissier,  Richter,  Burckhardt,  Lasaulx  and 
Sesan.2  Richter  argues  that  probably  the  reason  why  the 
text  of  the  Edict  has  not  been  preserved  by  Christian  trans- 
mitters of  Constantine's  history  is,  that  it  was  a  bare  state- 

1  "  None  of  our  people,  therefore,  ventured  to  hold  meetings  or  even 
to  appear  in  public,  because  his  (Maximin's)  communication  did  not 
cover  this,  but  only  commanded  to  guard  against  doing  us  any  injury, 
and  did  not  give  orders  that  we  should  hold  meetings  or  build  churches 
or  perform  any  of  our  customary  acts.  And  yet  Constantine  and  Licin- 
ius,  the  advocates  of  peace  and  piety,  had  written  him  to  permit  this, 
and  had  granted  it  to  all  their  subjects  by  edicts  and  ordinances." 

3  Tillemont,  Histoire  des  Empereurs,  vol.  iv,  p.  146,  Beugnot,  His.  de 
la  destruct.  du  paganisme,  vol.  i,  p.  57.  "  Peu  apres  son  entree  dans 
Rome,  Constantine  publia  conjointement  avec  Licinius  un  edit  favorable 
aux  Chretiens ;  il  parait  que  cet  edit  ne  leur  accordait  pas  la  liberte 
entiere  de  leur  culte;  il  ne  nous  est  point  parvenu."  Chastel,  His.  de 
la  destruct.  du  paganisme,  p.  52.  De  Broglie,  L'£glise  et  I' Empire  Ro- 
maine,  vol.  i,  p.  239.  Boissier,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  49.  Richter,  Das 
westrom.  Reich,  p.  62.  Burckhardt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  322  et  seq.  Lasaulx,  Dzr 
Untergang  des  Hellenismus,  p.  22.  Sesan,  Kirche  und  Staat  in  romisch- 
byzantimischen  Reiche  seit  Konstantin  d.  Grossen  bis  sum  Fall  Kon- 
stantinopel,  191 1. 


297j  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  39 

meiit  of  toleration  and  did  not  manifest  Constantine  as  an 
ardent  champion  of  the  Cross.  They  wished  to  have  him 
appear  full  of  enthusiasm  for  Christianity  from  the  day  of 
his  victory  over  Maxentius.1 

To-day  other  historians,  such  as  McGiffert  and  Hiille 
and  Wittig  deny  the  existence  of  an  Edict  of  Rome  grant- 
ing toleration  to  the  Christians. 2  They  believe  that  the  be- 
ginning of  the  first  of  the  above  quoted  pasages  from  Euse- 
bius  refers  to  an  edict  published  after  a  conference  of  Con- 
stantine and  Licinius  a  few  months  later — the  Edict  of 
Milan.  The  latter  part  of  the  passage  undoubtedly  refers 
to  a  letter  sent  by  Constantine  to  Maximin,  to  acquaint  him 
with  the  victory  over  Maxentius,  and  in  this  letter  there  may 
have  been  a  command  to  cease  persecuting  the  Christians.3 
Hiille  insists  that  the  second  passage  as  well  refers  to  the 
Edict  of  Milan.4 

In  view  of  the  intensive  work  of  Hiille  on  the  subject  of 
the  Edict  of  Rome  and  our  disagreement  with  his  point  of 
view,  we  give  his  argument  at  length.  He  points  out  that 5 
the  Senate  had  given  the  first  position  in  the  state  to  Con- 
stantine, who  could  therefore  exercise  dominion  over  the 
whole  empire  and  prohibit  maltreatment  of  Christians, 
even  in  Maximin's  territory.     He  believes  Eusebius  wrong 

1  p.  62. 

*  McGiffert,  Eus.,  H.  E.,  note  7  to  page  364.  Hiille,  Die  Toleranzer- 
lasse  der  romischen  Kaiser  f.  das  Christentum,  pp.  64  et  seq.  J.  Wittig 
Das  Toleransrescript  v.  Mailand,  p.  64  in  Konstantin  der  Grosse  u. 
seine  Zeit,  ed.  Dolger,  1913.  Other  historians,  while  not  explicitly 
denying  the  existence  of  this  edict,  ignore  it  in  their  narration  of 
events,  e.  g.  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encycl.  des  class.  Altertum-Wiss, 
and  Duchesne,  Hist.  anc.  de  I'Eglise. 

3  Cf.  Hiille,  p.  65 ;  also  Allard,  Le  Christianisme  et  I'Emp.  romaine, 
p.  148  and  Seeck's  Geschichte  d.  Untergang  d.  Ant.  Welt,  vol.  i,  p.  146. 

4  Cf.  op.  cit.,  pp.  64  et  seq.  Hiille  cites  Lact.,  ch.  xxxvii  to  support  his 
opinion. 

5  V.  pp.  64  et  seq.,  for  continuance  of  discussion. 


40  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [298 

in  giving  Licinius  any  share  in  this  communication,  for 
Licinius  had  not  taken  part  in  the  battle  against  Maxentius, 
and  had  not,  at  this  time,  experienced  the  wonders  of  the 
Christian  God.  He  watched  the  conflict  from  his  residence 
and  only  met  Constantine  at  Milan  in  the  opening  of  the 
year  313.1  Hiille  agrees  with  Keim  in  believing  that  Euse- 
bius  does  not  distinguish  between  the  letter  of  instruction 
from  one  emperor  to  another  and  the  imperial  law  or  Edict 
of  Milan  issued  early  in  the  year  313.  The  account  of  a  vic- 
tory won  three  months  before  would  scarcely  be  sent  to 
Maximin  along  with  this  imperial  law.  Neither  could 
Maximin  have  received  this  law  before  his  last  campaign 
against  Licinius,  which  began  the  middle  of  the  winter  313, 
and  which  abruptly  broke  up  the  conference  at  Milan. 
Eusebius,  in  the  last  words  of  the  quoted  selection,  states 
positively  that  when  the  account  of  the  victory  at  the  Mil- 
vian  Bridge  was  sent  to  Maximin,  he  "  still  pretended 
friendship  toward  them."  Furthermore,  Hiille  cannot  be- 
lieve Constantine  alone  at  Rome  drew  up  such  an  edict  of 
toleration  for  the  Christians,  (a)  Such  an  edict  has  not 
come  down  to  us.  (b)  If  such  an  edict  had  been  issued,  it 
would  be  strange  to  find  scarcely  three  months  later  a  sec- 
ond one  similar  in  character  drawn  up  at  Milan,  (c)  Fin- 
ally, there  was  no  need  for  an  edict  of  toleration  in  Rome. 
Maxentius  did  not  persecute  the  Christians  for  their  faith, 
and  had  given  back  property  that  had  been  earlier  seized 
from  the  churches,2  even  if  he  had  not  expressly  recog- 

1  Hiille,  p.  96,  says  they  were  together  in  Milan  from  the  middle  of 
January  to  the  beginning  of  April. 

8  Allard  op.  cit.  pp.  146-7  points  out  that  when  war  was  declared, 
Maxentius  had  already  authorized  Pope  Miltiades  to  reclaim  from  the 
urban  prefect  the  ecclesiastical  properties  confiscated  since  304;  and 
permitted  him  to  translate  from  Sicily  the  remains  of  his  predecessor 
in  order  to  inter  them  in  the  Cemetery  of  Callistus.  Cf.  De  Rossi, 
Roma  sotterranea,  vol.  ii,  p.  259. 


299]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  4I 

nized  Christianity  as  a  religio  licita.  Moreover,  with  the 
fall  of  Maxentius,  Christians  could  expect  their  religion  to 
be  recognized  as  one  of  the  religiones  licitae,  for  the  uni- 
versal law  of  Galerius,1  published  in  Constantine's  name 
also,  would  become  operative,  and  in  consequence,  there 
was  no  need  for  a  new  edict  for  the  Christians  of  Italy  and 
Africa.  Hiille  declares  then  that  this  passage  must  be 
taken  to  refer  to  the  legislation  at  Milan.3  He  remarks 
that  it  is  not  strange  that  Eusebius,  who  knew  little  about 
the  affairs  in  the  West,  made  a  mistake.  Hiille  believes 
that  it  was  Constantine's  letter  to  Maximin,  announcing  the 
overthrow  of  Maxentius,  that  led  Maximin  to  publish  his 
rescripts  to  Sabinus,  granting  restricted  toleration  to  Chris- 
tians.2 

Maximin   and   Maxentius   had   been   secret  allies,3   and 

1  v.  supra,  pp.  33-34- 

2  McGiffert,  p.  364,  note  18  adopts  the  view  that  it  was  not  the  fear 
of  Constantine  and  Licinius  which  led  to  this  rescript;  for  he  was 
bent  upon  war  against  them  and  attacked  Licinius  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  He  cannot  have  cared,  therefore,  to  take  any  es- 
pecial pains  to  conciliate  them.  He  was  probably  moved  by  a  desire 
just  at  this  crisis  to  conciliate  the  most  numerous  and  influential 
body  of  his  subjects  whom  he  had  persecuted,  in  order  that  he  might 
not  have  to  contend  with  disaffection  and  disloyalty  within  his  own 
dominions  during  the  impending  conflict  with  Licinius. 

3  Lact.,  op.  £it.,  ch.  xxxvii.  "  While  occupied  in  this  plan  he  received 
letters  from  Constantine  which  deterred  him  from  proceeding  in  its 
execution,  so  for  a  time  he  dissembled  his  purpose.  Nevertheless  any 
Christian  that  fell  into  his  power  was  privily  thrown  into  the  sea." 
Lact.,  ch.  xliv :  "  This  destructive  war  being  ended,  Constantine  was 
acclaimed  as  emperor,  with  great  rejoicings  by  the  senate  and  people 
of  Rome.  And  now  he  came  to  know  the  perfidy  of  Daja;  for  he 
found  the  letters  written  to  Maxentius  and  saw  the  statues  and  por- 
traits of  the  two  associates  which  had  been  set  up  together.  The 
senate,  in  reward  of  the  valour  of  Constantine,  decreed  to  him  the 
title  of  Maximus  (the  Greatest)  a  title  which  Daja  had  always  arro- 
gated to  himself.  Daja,  when  he  heard  that  Constantine  was  vic- 
torious and  Rome  freed,  expressed  as  much  sorrow  as  if  he  himself 


42  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [300 

Maximin  felt  it  profitable  after  his  confederate's  death  to 
strengthen  his  position  against  Constantine  and  Licinius, 
by  winning  the  support  of  his  Christian  subjects.  As  we 
saw  above,  Constantine  sent  word  of  the  defeat  of  Maxen- 
tius  to  Maximin,  who  then  published  a  decree  giving  half- 
hearted toleration  again  to  the  Christians.1 

The  Christians,  however,  had  grown  wise  under  Maxi- 
min's  double  dealing,  and  recognized  that  this  latest  edict 
of  pretended  toleration  carried  no'  more  real  liberty  than  the 
earlier  rescripts  had  done.  They,  therefore,  "  did  not  ven- 
ture to  hold  meetings  or  even  to  appear  in  public,  because 
his  communication  did  not  cover  this,  but  only  commanded 
to  guard  against  doing  us  any  injury,  and  did  not  give 
orders  that  we  should  hold  meetings  or  build  churches  or 
perform  any  of  our  customary  acts."  2  Only  after  Maxi- 
min's  defeat  by  Licinius  at  Adrianople,  April  30,  313,  did 
he  publish  a  complete  and  unequivocal  edict  of  toleration 
for  the  Christian  community. 

To  return  to  the  question  of  the  existence  of  an  Edict  of 
Rome.  It  is  a  fact,  to  be  sure,  that  no  text  of  a  Roman 
edict  has  come  down  to  us ;  but,  for  that  matter,  neither  do 
we  possess  texts  of  the  persecution  edicts  of  Diocletian. 
Notwithstanding  Hulle's  contention,  there  would  seem  to 
have  been  reason  for  Constantine,  upon  his  entry  into 
Rome,  to  make  some  formal  statement  in  regard  to  his 
policy  towards  the  Christians.  His  new  subjects,  both 
pagan  and  Christian,  would  expect  it.     That  an  emperor 

had  been  vanquished,  but  afterwards,  when  he  heard  of  the  decree  of 
the  senate  he  grew  outrageous,  avowed  enmity  towards  Constantine, 
and  made  his  title  of  the  Greatest  a  theme  of  abuse  and  raillery." 

1  This  decree  in  form  of  a  letter  to  the  prefect  Sabinus  is  found  in 
H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix. 

*  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix. 

3  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  x. 


3oi]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  43 

had  pursued  a  laissez-faire  policy  for  a  time  towards  Chris- 
tianity, carried  no  assurance  of  continued  toleration  of  the 
religion.  A  definite  statement  of  toleration  by  the  emperor, 
having  the  weight  of  a  legislative  act,  would  alone  con- 
vince Christians  that  they  might  be  sure  of  protection  from 
the  government  for  their  religion.  Although  both  Con- 
stantine's  and  Licinius'  names  appeared  on  the  edict  of 
Galerius,  everyone  knew  that  Galerius  was  the  real  author 
of  the  document,  and  that  the  other  two  imperial  names 
were  inscribed  on  it  only  as  a  matter  of  form.  Further, 
Maxentius  had  not  published  that  edict;  and,  although  he 
had  tardily  ordered  Christian  property  to  be  restored,  he 
had  not  recognized  Christianity  as  a  religio  licita.  When 
Constantine  made  his  triumphal  entry  into  Rome,  instead 
of  republishing  the  edict  of  an  emperor  who  had  been  dead 
quite  a  year,  it  would  have  been  more  likely  for  him  to 
issue  some  personal  promise  of  future  protection  to  the 
Christians.  He  did,  at  this  time,  publish  an  edict x  restoring 
confiscated  property,  recalling  exiles  and  releasing  men 
from  prison  and  other  penalties  unjustly  inflicted  by  Max- 
entius. Constantine  might  naturally  have  given  a  word  of 
assurance  to  Christians  in  the  same  document. 

If  Maximin  was  to  realize  the  need  of  attaching  his 
Christian  subjects  to  himself,  preparatory  to  his  future  con- 
flict with  Constantine  and  Licinius,  would  not  Constantine 
be  equally  far-sighted  and  see  the  value  of  winning  loyalty 
from  all  his  subjects?  If  the  Christians  were  expressly 
protected  by  Constantine,  Maximin  would  feel  doubly  the 
desirability  of  propitiating  those  in  his  own  territories.  It 
is  self-evident  that  only  Constantine  could  have  been  the 
author  of  an  Edict  of  Rome;  but  if  Constantine  and  Lici- 
nius were  in  sympathy  at  this  time,  it  would  have  been 

1  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xll. 


44  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [302 

natural  for  Constantine  to  add  as  a  formal  courtesy  Lici- 
nius'  name  to  his  own  *  on  the  document. 

As  some  of  the  older  historians  2  have  held,  perhaps  this 
assurance  of  toleration  did  seem  too  bare  in  its  form,  and 
Constantine  may  have  felt  it  worth  while  to  publish  a  fuller 
one  when  Licinius  too  would  be  actively  legislating.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  conceivable  that  he  made  only  an  in- 
formal statement  to  reassure  the  Christians  of  Rome  and 
Italy,  and  that  Eusebius  had  in  mind  the  letter  to  Maximin, 
when  he  referred  to  an  edict  of  toleration.  Our  conclusion 
then  is  from  the  evidence  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
situation,  that  Constantine  at  Rome,  after  defeating  Max- 
entius,  did  make  some  pronouncement  of  policy  towards 
Christianity ;  but  that  he  deemed  it  wise  to  reiterate  or  widen 
his  statement,  later,  at  Milan. 

Some  months  after  the  battle  on  the  Tiber,  Constantine 
and  Licinius  had  their  noteworthy  meeting  at  Milan,  and 
there  discussed  affairs  of  State  and  outlined  their  policies. 
It  has  been  believed  that  then  and  there  they  drew  up. 
among  other  things,  a  full  edict  of  complete  toleration  for 
the  Christians.3    The  texts  of  this  edict  have  been  supposed 

1  Vide  Seeck,  Das  Sogenannte  Edikt  von  Mailand,  p.  384  for  the 
custom  regarding  imperial  superscriptions  of  decrees. 

2  V.  supra,  pp.  38-39  also  Chastel,  op.  cit.,  p.  52,  note.  We  cannot  agree 
with  Boissier,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  49  and  others  that  the  document  of 
Rome  contained  certain  restrictions  which  soon  seemed  even  to  Con- 
stantine unjust  and  unworthy.  This  view  is  based  on  the  statement 
in  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v.  "But  since  to  that  rescript  in  which 
such  liberty  was  granted  them,  many  and  various  conditions  were 
evidently  attached,  some  Christians,  it  may  be,  later  ceased  to  observe 
their  religion."  We  follow  McGiffert,  p.  379.  note  3,  in  considering 
this  sentence  to  refer  to  the  edict  of  Galerius. 

3  Tillemont,  Allard,  Chastel,  Brieger,  Beugnot,  Boissier,  de  Broglie, 
Lasaulx,  Burckhardt,  Schultze,  Schiller,  Firth,  Cam.  Med.  His.,  Ranke 
(Weltgeschichte),  all  call  the  document  in  the  texts  cited  below  the 
Edict  of  Milan.  Ed.  Schwartz  in  his  Kaiser  Constantin  und  die  Christ- 
liche  Kirche,  p.  72,  believes  an  edict  of  toleration  was  drawn  up  at 
Milan. 


303]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  45 

to  be  preserved  in  Eusebius'  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  bk.  10, 
ch.  v,1  and  in  Lactantius'  De  nwrtibus  persecutorum,  ch. 
xlviii.2  There  are  slight  variations  in  the  readings,  and  the 
common  opinion  has  been  that  the  purer  text  was  that  of 
Lactantius.  Seeck,  in  1891,3  startled  scholars  by  declaring 
that  we  have  no  warrant  for  calling  these  documents  the 
Edict  of  Milan;  that,  in  fact,  there  never  was  an  Edict  of 
Milan.4 

Using  the  text  of  Lactantius,  Seeck  made,  in  his  article, 
a  critical  analysis  of  it  and  stated  his  reasons  for  refusing 
to  accept  it  as  a  formal  edict  of  toleration  for  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  whole  Empire,  granted  by  Constantine  and 
Licinius  at  Milan.  His  four  main  objections  to  the  uni- 
versally accepted  view  of  the  document  were :  (a)  It  was  not 
an  edict;  (b)  it  was  not  issued  by  Constantine;  (c)  it  was 
not  given  at  Milan;  (d)  it  did  not  grant  legal  toleration  to 
the  Christians  of  the  whole  empire,  for  the  greater  part 
already  possessed  it.  The  form,  he  declared,  was  not  that 
of  an  edict;  and  Lactantius  himself  refers  to  the  document 
as  a  letter  to  the  governor  of  Bithynia.  However,  Seeck 
conceded  that  a  letter  could  carry  as  direct  and  complete 
authority  as  an  edict.  When  Constantine  and  Licinius  met 
at  Milan,  he  argued,  they  could  not  have  sent  an  order  to 
the  governor  of  Bithynia,  because  that  province  was  still 
under  the  rule  of  Maximin.  He  admits  that  the  two  em- 
perors may  from  Milan  have  sent  a  document,  similar  to 
this  letter,  to  the  governors  in  their  own  territories,  and  then 
after  the  conquest  of  Maximin,  may  have  sent  correspond- 

1  V.  infra,  pp.  139  et  seq.  for  text. 

2  V.  infra,  pp.  134  et  seq.  for  text. 

3  Das  Sogenannte  Edikt  von  Mailand.    Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  xii,  pp.  381 
et  seq. 

4  "  Kin  Edikt  von  Mailand,  das  sich  mit  der  Christenf rage  beschaftigt, 
hat  es  nie  gegeben." 


46  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [304 

ing  letters  to  the  chief  officers  of  the  newly-conquered  ter- 
ritory.1 The  differences  that  exist  between  the  texts  of 
Lactantius  and  Eusebius,  he  goes  on  to  say,  can  scarcely  be 
explained  as  errors  or  omissions.  We  appear  to  have  two 
different  redactions  of  a  letter,  one  copy  sent  to  the  gov- 
ernor of  Bithynia  and  the  other  evidently  to  the  governor 
of  Eusebius'  home  province.  Seeck  believes  that  the  super- 
scription of  the  document,  unfortunately  lost,  bore  the 
names  of  the  three  emperors,  Constantine,  Licinius  and 
Maximin.2 

The  text  itself  refers  to  former  orders  concerning  Chris- 
tians which  are  to  be  disregarded  now  that  Christians  are 
tc  be  given  complete  toleration.3  Seeck  cannot  believe  that 
Constantine  and  Licinius  were  here  retracting  decrees  of 
their  own.4  The  context  of  the  source  shows  that  orders 
were  sent  to  the  governor  of  Bithynia,  and  with  this  dis- 
trict Licinius  and  Constantine  had  nothing  to  do  before 
Licinius  had  conquered  Maximin.  These  former  orders, 
Seeck  believes,  were  the  commands  of  Maximin;  and  for 
this  theory  finds  confirmation  in  the  text  of  Eusebius.  Here 
the  emperors  state  that  they  have  long  given  their  subjects 
freedom  to  become  Christians  at  will.     "  But  since  to  that 

1 "  Die  Kaiser  konnten  also  von  Mailand  aus  Schreiben  gleichen 
Inhalts  zunachst  an  die  Statthalter  ihrer  Reichsteile  versandt  und  dann 
nach  der  Besiegung  des  Maximinus  in  jeder  seiner  Provinzen,  welche 
in  die  Hande  des  Licinius  fiel,  den  Oberbeamten  entsprechende  Briefe 
zugestellt  haben,"  p.  382.  This  seems  to  imply  the  possibility  of  an 
edict  or  decree  of  toleration  at  Milan ! 

2  p.  383  also  p.  384  "  Wenn  folglich  in  dem  Toleranzgesetz  tarn  ego 
C onstantinus  Augustus  quam  etiam  ego  Licinius  Augustus  statt  des 
schlichten  nos  steht,  so  folgt  daraus,  dass  die  Ueberschrift  mehr  Namen 
als  diese  beiden  enthielt." 

•  "  and,  accordingly,  we  give  you  to  know  that  without  regard  to  any 
provision  in  our  former  orders  to  you  concerning  the  Christians,  etc." 
Also  Introduction  to  Eusebius'  text.     V.  infra,  p.  165. 

4  V.  infra,  p.  139. 


-0e]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  47 

rescript  in  which  such  liberty  was  granted  them  many  and 
various  conditions  1  were  evidently  added,  some  Christians, 
it  may  be,  later  ceased  to  observe  their  religion."  2  Maxi- 
min,  as  we  have  seen,3  failed  to  publish  Galerius'  edict. 
The  Christians  had  been  so  deceived  as  to  the  real  import 
of  the  rescript  that  he  had  promulgated  in  lieu  of  this  edict, 
that  later  they  regarded  with  suspicion  the  grudging  promise 
of  religious  toleration  which  he  extended  to  them  in  312 
after  receiving  the  news  of  Maxentius'  destruction.4  Not 
until  after  his  defeat  by  Licinius  did  Maximin  give  an  un- 
equivocal order  for  complete  toleration  of  Christianity.5 
Therefore,  Seeck  contends,  it  was  to  set  aside  these  tricky 
mandates  of  Maximin  that  the  document  we  have  under 
consideration  was  drawn  up. 

Since  in  all  but  the  eastern  part  of  the  Empire,  Seeck 
believes,  the  last  orders  of  the  dying  Galerius  were  carried 
out  at  this  time,  a  further  assurance  was  quite  unnecessary. 
In  the  Orient,  on  the  other  hand,  persecution  of  the  Chris- 
tians had  continued.  Consequently  Seeck  declares  that 
this  law  affected  not  the  whole  empire,  but  only  the  Orient. 
The  political  conditions  and  the  context  of  the  source, 
Seeck  asseverates,  both  prove  that  Licinius,  not  Constan- 

'  For  discussion  on  the  translation  of  aiptaeis  as  "  conditions  "  in- 
stead of  "sects"  v.  McGiffert,  p.  379,  note  4;  and  Hiille,  p.  80,  note  2 
and  pp.  95,  96. 

2  For  full  text  v.  infra,  pp.  139  et  seq. 

3  V.  supra,  p.  35. 

4  "  Since  he  was  forced  to  do  this  by  necessity  and  did  not  give  the 
command  by  his  own  will,  he  was  not  regarded  by  any  one  as  sincere 
or  trustworthy,  because  he  had  already  shown  his  unstable  and  deceit- 
ful disposition  after  his  former  similar  concession.  None  of  our 
people,  therefore,  ventured  to  hold  meetings  or  even  to  appear  in  pub- 
lic, because  his  communication  did  not  cover  this,  but  only  commanded 
to  guard  against  doing  us  any  injury."     H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix,  par.  23. 

6  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  x  for  text. 


48  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [306 

tine,  was  the  real  author  of  the  decree  and  that  it  was  pub- 
lished at  Nicomedia,  not  Milan.  According  to  Seeck,  we 
ought,  therefore,  to  call  this  law,  not  "The  Edict  of  Milan," 
but  "  The  Decree  of  Nicomedia." 

Such  was  the  substance  of  this  remarkable  article.  Seeck 
did  not  retreat  from  its  conclusions  in  the  face  of  the  in- 
evitable attacks  which  followed  its  publication.  Subse- 
quently, in  replying  to  the  criticisms  of  Crivellucci,1  he  de- 
nied again  that  such  an  edict  ever  existed.2 

All  scholars  now  seem  willing  to  agree  with  Seeck,  that 
the  source  under  discussion  should  more  exactly  be  called  a 
decree  of  Licinius,  given  at  Nicomedia.3  Some  further  be- 
lieve that  no  toleration  document  of  any  kind  was  drawn  up 
at  Milan.4  Others,  however,  while  acknowledging  that 
Seeck  is  correct  in  claiming  that  what  we  had  been  care- 
lessly calling  the  Edict  of  Milan,  is  really  a  Decree  of  Nico- 
media, insist  that  there  was  somewhat  earlier  an  edict  of 
toleration,  given  at  Milan  by  Licinius  and  Constantine.5 

1  L'editto  di  Milano,  Studi  storichi,  vol.  i,  p.  239. 

2  "Ueber  das  Edikt  von  Mailand  babe  ich  nicht  geredet,  da  ein  solches 
meiner  Ueberzeugung  nach  ueberhaupt  nicht  existiert  hat."  Gesch. 
des  Untergangs  der  ant.  Welt.  Anhang  sum  ersten  Band,  p.  499. 
Cf.  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  xii,  p.  381. 

3  Cf.  Duchesne,  His.  Anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  38,  Hiille,  op.  cit., 
pp.  80  and  97.  Schultze,  New  Schaff-Hersog-Ency.  of  Relig.  Kno., 
loc.  cit. 

i  Pauly- Wissowa,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  1081.  Cf.  Botsford,  A  History 
of  the  Ancient  World,  p.  515  note.  Robinson,  Readings  in  European 
History,  vol.  ii,  p.  22,  note. 

5  Duchesne,  His.  Anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  38,  Hiille,  op.  cit.,  pp.  80 
and  97,  Crivellucci,  op.  cit.,  also  Gorres,  op.  cit.,  infra,  Crivellucci  cites 
Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix,  par.  25,  as  proof  of  his  conviction  that  an 
Edict  of  Milan  was  drawn  up  by  Constantine  and  Licinius.  Seeck 
insists  that  Eusebius  in  this  passage  is  incorrect  in  his  chronology. 
Constantine,  he  points  out,  was  still  in  Rome  the  middle  of  January 
313,  and  the  battle  between  Licinius  and  Maximin  on  the  Campus 
Serenus  took   place   April   30   of   the   same   year.      Remembering  the 


307]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  4g 

To  the  latter  group  belongs  Gorres.  A  few  years  after 
Seeck's  article  Das  Sogenannte  Edikt  von  Mailand  ap- 
peared Gorres  published  a  scornful  attack  upon  it.1  While 
agreeing  with  Seeck's  chief  contention,  that  the  document 
we  had  been  calling  the  Edict  of  Milan  is  really  a  Decree 
of  Nicomedia  given  by  Licinius,  he  takes  issue  with  Seeck 
on  many  points,  and  does  battle  royally  for  his  faith  in  the 
existence  of  an  Edict  of  Milan. 

Gorres  claims  four  chief  errors  in  Seeck's  position:  (a) 
Seeck  underestimates  the  intellectual  inferiority  to  Constan- 
tion  of  Licinius  and  even  Galerius.  (b)  He  seems  to  have 
no  notion  that  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia  widened  the  exist- 
ing privileges  of  Christians.  The  Edict  of  Galerius  had 
made  Christianity  a  religio  licita,  but  the  law  of  313  gave 
complete  religious  freedom  to  Christians,  (c)  He  fails  to 
recognize  the  grandeur  of  the  policy  of  Constantine  for  the 
Christians,  (d)  He  disregards  entirely  the  historical  set- 
ting in  discussing  the  question  of  an  Edict  of  Milan.  In 
the  opinion  of  Gorres  one  of  Seeck's  serious  faults  is  his 
disregard  of  modern  literature  on  Constantine,  especially 
Gorres'  own  illuminating  articles ! 

The  constructive  argument  of  Gorres  runs  as  follows. 
In  313,  at  Milan,  Constantine  and  Licinius  drew  up  an 
edict  (unfortunately  lost),  granting  fullest  toleration  to 
Christians,  and  then  sent  it  to  the  pretorian  prefects.    This 

distance  between  the  two  localities,  Seeck  contends  that  a  law  which 
could  not  have  been  drawn  up  before  January  could  not  have  been  re- 
ceived by  Maximin  before  he  had  clearly  shown  his  enmity  to  Licinius ; 
and  still  Eusebius  declares  that  Maximin  was  pretending  friendship 
for  his  colleagues,  when  fear  of  them  led  him  to  publish  his  law  of 
toleration.  Wittig,  op.  cit.,  p.  62,  thinks  we  may  still  speak  of  a  toler- 
ation rescript  of  Milan  of  313.  He  says  that  Sesan,  op.  cit.,  agrees 
with  him  in  this  view  although  he  calls  the  document  an  edict. 

1  Eine  Bestreitung  des  Edikts  von  Mailand  durch  O.  Seeck  kritisch 
beleuchtet  in  Zcitschrift  fur  Wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  vol.  xxxv, 
pp.  28  et.  scq. 


50  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [308 

edict  affected  all  the  Empire,  except  those  territories  under 
Maximin's  dominion.  After  the  conquest  of  Bithynia, 
both  Emperors  were  concerned  that  its  inhabitants  should 
be  assured  of  the  benefits  of  the  Edict  of  Milan.  In  con- 
sequence a  decree  was  addressed  to  the  governor  of 
Bithynia;  and  an  arrangement  was  made  for  publishing  the 
decree  in  the  other  eastern  provinces,  as  soon  as  they  should 
fall  into  the  hands  of  Licinius.  Quite  naturally,  neither 
Lactantius  nor  Eusebius  had  any  interest  in  the  original 
copy  of  the  Edict  of  Milan.  Therefore  Lactantius  gave  the 
form  as  he  knew  it,  published  at  Nicomedia,  while  Euse- 
bius used  the  form  sent  to  the  governor  of  Palestine. 

Gorres  declares  there  is  no  proof  that  Maximin's  name 
appeared  on  the  Edict  of  Nicomedia;  it  was  against  him 
that  the  decree  was  directed,  his  name  did  not  appear  even 
on  the  edict  of  Galerius.  Gorres  pronounces  it  sheer  non- 
sense to  think  that  the  nephew  of  Galerius,  the  most  brutal 
of  all  the  emperors  who  persecuted  Christians,  had  signed 
the  edict  of  toleration  in  313. 

Gorres  further  contends  that  when  Seeck  claims  that 
Maximin  signed  the  decree  of  313,  he  fails  to  distinguish- 
between  the  character  of  the  provisions  of  that  document 
and  those  of  the  edict  of  311.  Gorres  does  not  acknowledge 
that  the  purpose  of  the  decree  of  313  is  primarily  to  set 
aside  the  ambiguous  and  evil  mandates  of  Maximin,  but 
rather  to  abolish  restrictions  in  the  edict  of  311.1  He  holds 
that  Seeck  does  not  seem  to  have  any  conception  of  Con- 
stantine's  noble  religious  policy.  If  we  follow  Seeck,  says 
Gorres,  Constantine's  great  and  glorious  victory  over  Max- 
entius  gave  the  Christians  only  the  modest  right  of  having 
a  religio  licita,  such  as  the  Jews  possessed.    He  cannot  agree 

1  Wittig,  op.  cit.,  p.  56  believes  with  Gorres  that  the  conditions  re- 
ferred to  were  those  of  the  edict  of  Galerius.  Sesan,  op.  cit.,  how- 
ever, takes  them  as  those  of  an  edict  of  Constantine  of  312. 


30g]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  5 1 

with  Seeck  that  the  edict  of  Galerius  had  made  full  provi- 
sion for  Christianity,  and  that  Constantine  had  nothing  to 
do  for  the  Church.  He  argues  that  the  Edict  of  Milan  wid- 
ened the  recognition  given  to  Christianity  in  311  and  placed 
the  religion  of  Jesus  on  the  same  footing  as  paganism,  and 
also  provided  for  the  restitution  of  property  to  Christians. 

Gorres  points  out  that  the  spirit  of  the  Decree  of  Nico- 
media  is  monotheistic  and  as  such  emanated  from  Constan- 
tine, who  had  inherited  monotheistic  ideas  from  his  father. 
This  monotheism  was  accepted  by  Licinius,  the  peasant's 
son,  who  had  been  brought  up  in  a  camp  and  was  an  enemy 
to  cultivation  and  a  friend  of  Mammon  and  women,  purely 
as  a  matter  of  expediency.  He  was  not  at  all  in  sympathy 
with  religious  speculation  and  showed  favor  to  Christianity, 
at  this  time,  only  on  account  of  antagonism  to  Daja  and 
of  alliance  with  Constantine.  Gorres  concludes  his  argu- 
ments and  discussions  by  declaring  that  nothing  can  shake 
the  historical  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  Edict  of  Milan 
and  he  trusts  that  his  article  will  prevent  in  the  future  any 
attack  like  Seeck's. 

In  comparing  the  arguments  of  Seeck  and  Gorres  in 
their  critiques  of  the  Edict  of  Milan,  we  find  we  cannot 
subscribe  to  all  the  conclusions  of  either  critic.  They  agree 
in  calling  the  text  of  Lactantius  that  of  a  decree  of  Licinius 
given  at  Nicomedia  and  affecting  only  the  Oriental  prov- 
inces ;  but  this  is  almost  the  only  proposition  in  the  discus- 
sion upon  which  they  exhibit  one  mind.  We  agree  with 
Gorres  in  believing  that  the  decree  of  Nicomedia  breathes 
the  spirit  of  Constantine,  rather  than  that  of  Licinius.  Fur- 
thermore, Gorres  seems  justified  in  charging  Seeck  with 
disregarding  the  actual  difference  in  the  toleration  accorded 
by  Constantine  and  Licinius  from  that  allowed  by  Galerius. 
As  to  the  matter  of  the  number  of  imperial  names  origi- 
nally inscribed  on  the  text  of  Lactantius,  Seeck  seems  to 


52  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [310 

have  the  better  of  the  argument.  He  does  not,  however, 
claim,  as  Gorres  implies  that  he  does,  that  Maximin  actu- 
ally signed  and  subscribed  to  the  decree.  The  formal  ad- 
dition of  a  colleague's  name  was  a  polite  usage,  and  did  not, 
in  itself,  imply  that  the  colleague  was  actively  legislating. 
When  it  comes  to  the  discussion  over  the  references  to  un- 
favorable provisions  in  former  decrees,  it  seems  probable 
that  Gorres  is  nearer  the  truth  than  Seeck  in  believing  the 
passage  referred  not  only  to  the  chicanery  of  Maximin,  but 
also  to  the  possible  restrictive  clause  in  the  edict  of  Galer- 
ius.  Finally,  Gorres  seems  justified  in  maintaining  that  a 
toleration  decree  was  actually  drawn  up  at  Milan  for  all 
parts  of  the  Empire  except  for  those  ruled  over  by  Maxi- 
min. 

Hulle  in  his  valuable  monograph  on  the  Toleration  Edicts 
of  the  Roman  Emperors  for  the  Christians,1  devotes  close 
study  to  the  critical  examination  of  the  texts  of  the  decree 
of  Nicomedia,  preserved  by  Eusebius  as  Imperial  Laws 
and  by  Lactantius  as  Letters  of  Licinius.  He  believes 
that  the  text  of  Lactantius  is  the  earlier  form  of  the  two. 
The  differences  in  expression,  which  he  analyzes,  lead  him 
to  conclude  that  both  documents  are  based  on  a  common 
Latin  text,  no  longer  extant.2  In  view  of  some  variation 
in  context  of  the  two  readings,  Hiille  acknowledges  that 
they  may  possibly  be  redactions  of  two  original  documents, 
one  used  by  Eusebius,  the  other  by  Lactantius,  Even  in 
this  case  he  would  give  the  preference  to  the  text  of  Lac- 
tantius, since  we  have  it  in  its  original  language,  not  a  trans- 
lation.    Both  texts  are  defective,  and  in  neither  one  has 

1  op.  cit. 

7  The  introduction  given  in  Eusebius  is  wanting  in  Lactantius.  Cer- 
tain formal  differences  may  be  due  to  the  exigencies  of  the  two  lan- 
guages. The  chief  difference  in  contents  is  that  "  Quo  quicquid  divin- 
itatis  in  sede  caelesti "  of  Lactantius  compared  with  the  corresponding 
clause  in  Eusebius,  q.  v. 


3n]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  53 

been  preserved  the  usual  greeting  to  the  governor  to  whom 
the  law  was  sent.  Eusebius  mentions  the  name  of  no  other 
emperor  than  those  of  Constantine  and  Licinius.  Undoubt- 
edly when  this  law  was  published  in  Palestine,  Hiille  re- 
minds us,  it  bore  no  additional  imperial  name,  for  Maximin 
was  then  dead  and  his  name  execrated.  From  the  context 
of  Lactantius'  text,  Hiille  contends  we  can  determine  posi- 
tively who  were  the  real  authors  of  the  law  but  not  whose 
names  made  up  the  original  superscriptions.  He  agrees 
with  Seeck  that  the  decree  originally  bore  more  names  than 
those  of  Constantine  and  Licinius.  He  further  declares  it 
self-evident  that  there  could  not  have  been  more  than 
three  names,  and  that  the  third  name  must  have  been  that 
of  Maximin,  who  even  after  his  battle  with  Licinius,  was 
recognized  by  Licinius  and  Constantine  as  emperor.1 

Although  Hiille  is  willing  to  concede  that  the  text  of  Lac- 
tantius is  that  of  a  decree  of  Licinius  affecting  only  the 
Orient  and  given  at  Nicomedia,  he  refuses  to  follow  Seeck 
in  denying  the  existence  of  an  Edict  of  Milan.^ 

Hiille  judges  that  the  edict  of  Galerius  did  not  give  full 
religious  freedom  to  Christians;  hence  there  was  need,  in 
the  early  days  of  the  reign  of  Constantine,  for  some  pro- 
vision for  widening  the  limited  toleration  allowed  by  the 
law  of  311.  He  contends  that  Constantine  and  Licinius 
recognized  this  need,  when  discussing  imperial  affairs  at 
Milan;  and  in  consequence  made  a  statement,  probably  in 
the  form  of  an  edict,  that,  in  future,  all  men,  Christians  and 
those  of  all  other  religions  as  well,  were  to  enjoy  complete 

1  He  disposes  of  the  theory  of  Zahn  and  Hunziker  that  the  third 
name  was  that  of  Galerius,  v.  p.  94. 

*  "  Die  Polemik  Seecks  scheint  uns  aber  zu  weit  zu  gehen,  wenn  sie 
auch  die  Geschichtlichkeit  eines  Mailander  Religionsedicts  ueberhaupt 
bestreitet  und  behauptet,  "  Ein  Edikt  v.  Mailand,  das  sich  mit  der 
Christenfrage  beschaftigte,  hat  es  nie  gegeben." 


q4  TOLERATION  UNDER  C0NSTANT1NE  [312 

religious  toleration.  This  law,  he  believes,  was  published 
at  Milan;  and  although  we  do  not  possess  a  copy  of  it,  we 
can  judge  of  its  provisions  from  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia. 
He  finds  evidence  for  this  view,  in  the  references  in  the 
Decree  of  Nicomedia.  Even  Eusebius'  errors  elsewhere1 
are.  to  Hiille's  mind,  further  proof  of  the  existence  of  an 
Edict  of  Milan.2 

Hiille's  great  contributions  to  the  attempted  solution  of 
the  problem  are  his  keen  analyses  of  the  texts  under  dis- 
cussion. His  conclusions  are  sound  and  cautious,  and  we 
can  subscribe  to  those  noted  above.  We  feel  less  sympathy, 
however,  with  his  interpretation  of  the  spirit  and  intent  of 
the  legislators  of  the  Edict  of  Milan.3 

Let  us  turn  now  to  consider  the  content  of  the  Decree  of 
Nicomedia.4  From  it  we  can  estimate  the  spirit  of  a  prob- 
able Edict  of  Milan,  even  if  we  can  only  conjecture  what 
its  actual  provisions  may  have  been.  The  decree  really  con- 
sists of  two  parts :  the  first,  about  a  quarter  of  the  whole 
document,  contains  a  summary  of  the  religious  policy 
agreed  upon  by  Licinius  and  Constantine,  while  discussing 
general  affairs  of  state  at  Milan;  the  second5  consists  of 

1  H.  E.,  bk.  ix,  ch.  ix ;  bk.  x,  ch.  v. 

2  Duchesne  takes  about  the  same  position  in  regard  to  Hiille's  con- 
clusions anent  the  Edict  of  Milan  and  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia.  His. 
anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  38. 

8  V.  p.  100.  Hiille  thinks  that  an  Edict  of  Milan  made  no  provision 
for  the  return  of  property  to  Christians  because  that  had  been  pro- 
vided for  in  Constantine's  letter  to  Anulinus,  the  pro-consul  of  Africa. 
Wittig,  op.  cit.,  pp.  51  et  seq.,  believes  it  impossible  to  prove  the  date 
of  this  letter,  feels  it  would  have  been  odd  if  the  emperors  at  Milan 
had  not  concerned  themselves  with  the  matter  of  Christian  property. 
This  author  believes  we  can  find  more  of  the  Edict  of  Milan  in  the 
Decree  of  Nicomedia,  than  Hiille  is  willing  to  allow. 

4  For  text  v.  infra,  pp.  136  et  seq. 

5  Beginning  "And  accordingly  we  give  you  to  know." 


313]  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  cc 

the  provisions  for  the  religious  toleration  that  Licinius  was 
extending  to  the  lately  conquered  Bithynia.  The  religious 
policy  outlined  at  Milan  was  one  of  broadest  toleration, 
and  carried  positive  assurance  of  complete  religious  free- 
dom to  Christians  and  all  other  men.  Constantine  and  Lici- 
nius had  agreed  that  every  man  should  have  liberty,  not 
only  to  practise  his  own  religion,  but  also  to  choose  any  cult 
and  attach  himself  to  it. 

Licinius,  in  the  second  part  of  the  document,  extended 
these  same  privileges  to  his  new  subjects,  and  expressly 
stated  that  neither  tenor  nor  provisions  of  former  mandates 
concerning  Christians  were  to  be  regarded  in  future.  This 
indulgence  to  Christians  was  unconditional,  and  they  were 
not  to  be  disturbed  nor  molested  in  any  way.  The  em- 
peror arranged  that  Christians  and  Christian  corporations 
should  receive  again,  without  cost  to  them,  their  property 
which  had  been  confiscated.  Provision,  however,  was 
made  to  indemnify  the  present  owners  of  such  property, 
from  the  state  treasury.  As  at  Milan  so  at  Nicomedia,  the 
government  proclaimed  religious  freedom  not  only  for 
Christians  but  for  all  other  men  as  well. 

Quite  distinctly  the  authors  of  the  document  under  dis- 
cussion made  religious  motives  its  raison  d'etre.  Relig- 
ion, they  declare,  is  the  vital  question  in  a  state  because  of 
its  great  value  for  all  men.  It  is  in  order  that  all  men,  from 
the  sovereigns  down  to  the  humblest  in  the  land,  should 
enjoy  the  favor  of  the  divinity  in  heaven  that  the  emperors 
propose  to  grant  freedom  to  all  men  in  matters  of  religious 
faith  and  practice.  The  whole  spirit  of  the  decree  is  mono- 
theistic, pure  and  simple ;  yet  there  is  no  statement  to  war- 
rant one  considering  the  divinity  referred  to  as  identical 
with  the  Christian  God.1 

1  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  phraseology  of  the  references  to  the 
divinity  was  intentionally  vague.     For  although  Constantine  may  have 


q6  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [314 

On  the  contrary,  a  divinity  who  was  to  be  propitiated) 
and  gratified  by  the  establishment  of  this  universal  tolera- 
tion would  seem,  in  the  fourth  century,  to  correspond  to  the 
syncretistic  ideas  of  some  pagans  rather  than  to  those  of 
any  Christians.  The  framers  of  the  religious  policy  of 
Milan  and  Nicomedia  carefully  safeguarded  the  dignity  of 
all  religions  of  the  Empire,  declaring  it  not  their  will  that 
any  cult  or  its  adherents  should  suffer  loss  of  any  honor. 

become  converted  to  Christianity,  Licinius  was  still  a  pagan  at  heart 
and  would  have  been  unwilling  to  sign  a  decree  that  proclaimed  him 
a  devotee  of  the  Christ.  Hence  the  phrases  in  the  edict  were  turned 
in  such  fashion  that  they  could  apply  to  the  personal  religion  of  either 
emperor.     For  this  view  v.  Firth,  op.  cit.,  pp.  no  et  seq. 

Other  scholars  find  in  this  same  use  of  vague  terms  in  speaking  of 
the  omnipotent  God,  a  proof  that  Constantine  was  not  yet  converted 
to  complete  faith  in  the  God  of  the  Christians.  Boissier,  op.  cit.,  vol. 
i,  pp.  59  et  seq.,  disposes  of  the  supposition  that  Constantine  wrote 
the  Edict  of  Milan  under  the  influence  of  the  Christian  bishops. 
Using  the  text  of  Lact.,  op.  cit.,  ch.  xlviii,  he  contends  that  a  Christian 
would  never  have  been  willing  to  concede  that  the  pagan  gods  played 
any  role  in  the  government  of  the  world  or  that  it  was  needful  to 
conciliate  them.  Only  a  pagan  would  feel  the  necessity  of  propitiating 
every  man's  god.  Boissier  points  out  that  in  the  fourth  century  num- 
bers of  thoughtful  pagans,  conscious  of  the  syncretism  of  the  age, 
were  endeavoring  to  find  a  via  media  for  pagans  and  Christians.  He 
sees  the  spirit  of  such  pagans  in  these  ambiguous  references  to  the 
divinity,  and  the  confessions  of  the  utility  of  allowing  each  man  to 
worship  his  own  god.  Was  Constantine  then  a  pagan  standing  in 
this  via  media?  Not  at  all,  says  Boissier,  he  was  a  Christian  since 
his  conflict  with  Maxentius ;  he  was  himself  responsible  for  the  pro- 
visions of  the  document,  which  are  deeply  Christian,  but  his  pagan 
chancellery  gave  the  form  to  the  document.  This  interpretation  of 
Boissier's  is  interesting  and  ingenious  but  hardly  satisfactory.  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  an  emperor's  scribes  could  cast  a  document 
in  such  form  as  to  convey  a  spirit  different  from  that  which  the 
emperor  intended.  It  is,  however,  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  states- 
man like  Constantine  would  phrase  such  a  decree  as  this  so  as  to  carry 
weight  with  adherents  of  all  religions.  This  was  certainly  no  op- 
portune occasion  for  an  expression  of  the  emperor's  personal  religious 
tenets  particularly  as  his  colleague  and  ally  was  of  a  different  reli- 
gious stripe. 


.j,i  EDICTS  OF  TOLERATION  57 

It  is  true  that  the  Christian  religion  was  the  only  one  men- 
tioned by  name  in  the  decree.  This  was  quite  natural  and 
cannot  be  taken  to  imply  a  surprising  degree  of  interest  in 
Christianity  or  any  lack  of  consideration  of  other  cults. 
The  Christian  Church  was  the  only  religious  organization 
which  had  not  possessed  a  legal  position  until  the  preceding 
year;  and  even  since  Galerius'  edict,  it  had  suffered  perse- 
cution in  the  East.  Therefore  any  proclamation  of  tolera- 
tion would  naturally  have  reference  more  especially  to 
Christianity — the  one  religion  whose  position  in  the  law  of 
the  empire  had  been  so  unsettled,  and  whose  history  had 
been  so  checkered  with  neglect,  contempt  and  persecution 
at  the  hands  of  the  government. 

It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  in  313,  both  at  Milan 
and  again  at  Nicomedia,  the  government,  while  granting 
toleration  to  Christians,  thought  it  advisable  to  reassure  the 
adherents  of  other  religions  that  similar  protection  would  be 
given  to  them  also.  Boissier  sees  in  this  protection  of  the 
non-Christian  cults  simply  the  essentially  tolerant  spirit  of 
Christianity.1  For  our  part  other  interpretations  seem 
equally  reasonable.  Might  we  not  gather  from  these  pro- 
visions that  so  many  favors  had  by  this  time  been  extended 
to  the  Christians,  that  pagans  began  to  fear  that  Christianity 
was  to  become  the  religion  of  the  government?  Men  may 
have  believed,  and  not  unnaturally,  that  complete  tolera- 
tion toward  Christianity  would  entail  the  loss  of  freedom 
to  other  religions.  If  Constantine  were  a  Christian  at  this 
time  it  would  be  advisable  for  him  to  assure  his  pagan  sub- 
jects that  he  did  not  intend  to  display  a  not  uncommon 
spirit  of  Christian  intoleration  towards  pagan  cults.  Again, 
we  might  read  in  these  passages  only  proofs  of  the  lively1 
desire  of  the  pagan  Licinius  to  reassure  the  troubled  minds 

1  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  58,  where  he  cites  the  tolerant  expressions  of 
Tertullian  and  Lactantius. 


eg  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [316 

of  his  co-religionists  that  they  should  be  undisturbed  in 
their  faith.  Or  finally,  we  might  conclude  that  in  the  assur- 
ances of  religious  liberty  to  pagans,  we  should  find  chiefly 
evidences  of  the  broad,  tolerant  spirit  of  Constantine,  who 
may,  or  may  not,  have  been  a  convert  to  Christianity  by  313. 
These  are  opinions  upon  which  the  historian  who  is  particu- 
larly interested  in  solving  the  riddle  of  the  exact  position 
of  Constantine  towards  Christianity  in  313,  and  his  real  de- 
sire in  regard  to  the  ultimate  position  of  paganism  in  the 
state  may  speculate.  Our  chief  interest,  however,  in  the 
decrees  of  Milan  and  Nicomedia  lies  in  ascertaining  their 
relation  to  earlier  legislation  for  Christians,  and  their  actual 
provisions  affecting  Christians  and  pagans. 

Undoubtedly,  in  the  light  of  close  scrutiny  of  the  texts, 
this  legislation  of  Constantine  and  Licinius  did  amplify  the 
toleration  accorded  to  Christians  both  by  the  edict  of  Gal- 
erius  and  by  the  statement  of  toleration  probably  made 
by  Constantine  in  Rome.  By  April,  313,  the  two  rulers  of 
the  entire  Roman  world  formally  published  their  policy  of 
complete  religious  toleration  for  every  variety  of  cult  that 
might  be  practiced  within  their  territory.  The  millennium, 
in  which  the  lion  and  the  lamb  are  to  lie  down  together, 
seemed  ushered  in.1  Our  task  now  is  to  examine  the  re- 
maining legislation  touching  Christians,  in  the  period  in 
which  Constantine  and  Licinius  were  joint  rulers  of  the 
Empire. 

1  Hiille,  p.  100  sees  the  edict  from  a  different  angle. 

"  Denn  dass  wir  in  der  That  berechtigt  sind  die  Verkiindigung  allge- 
meiner  Religionsfreiheit  in  Mailander  Edict  nicht  als  einen  Ausdruck 
heidnisch  synkretistischer  Stimmuhg  der  Machthaber  und  einen  Erweis 
ihrer  ehrlichen  Ueberzeugung,  dass  auf  religiosem  Gebiet  absolut  Tole- 
ranz  herrschen  miisse,  zu  betrachten,  sondern  als  den  ersten  bewusst 
unternommenen  Versuch  den  bisher  heidnischen  Staat  zum  Christen- 
tum  hiniiber  zufuhren,  dafiir  liefern  uns  die  religionspolitischen  Mass- 
nahmen  Constantins  und  des  Licinius  welche  sich  unmittelbar  an  die 
Mailander  Proclamation  anschlossen,  den  Beweis." 


CHAPTER  III 
Legislation  for  the  Christians 

The  religious  policy,  outlined  in  the  decree  of  Nicomedia, 
was,  upon  the  whole,  sustained  by  Constantine  during  his 
reign.  It  was  a  statesmanlike  policy  of  accommodation  to 
the  existing  religious  forces  in  his  empire.  Favor  was 
granted -to  Christianity,  as  privileges  in  the  past  had  been 
extended  to  the  other  Oriental  cults,  which  had  finally  been 
permitted  to  enjoy  the  liberty  of  the  ancient  religion  of  the 
Romans.  Since,  however,  Christianity  was  the  new  re- 
ligion, it  could  only  achieve  a  position  parallel  to  that  of  the 
pagan  cults  by  a  series  of  special  enactments  and  benefac-J 
tions  which  would  secure  it,  not  only  the  legal  equality  with 
paganism,  but  enable  it,  at  the  same  time,  to  realize  its  posi- 
tion as  one  of  the  religiones  licitae.  We  shall  therefore 
turn  first  to  a  survey  of  the  policy  of  Constantine  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Church. 

In  313  Constantine  enacted  that  the  orthodox  clergy 
should  be  freed  from  all  personal  obligations.1  A  letter  ad- 
dressed to  Anulinus,  proconsul  of  Africa,  to  whom  the 
edict  also  was  directed,  commanded  that  the  clergy  be  re- 
leased from  all  public  duties,  that  they  might  devote  them- 
selves to  their  vocations ;  "  for  it  seems  that  when  they 
show  the  greatest  reverence  to  the  Deity,  the  greatest  bene- 
fits accrue  to  the  state."  2 

1  C.  Th.  xvi-2-1  v.  infra,  p.  152. 

*  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  vii.  Godefroy  holds  that  the  edict  and  letter 
refer  to  the  same  piece  of  legislation.  For  the  opposite  view  see 
Mommsen  C.  Th.  xvi-2-1  note. 

317]  59 


60  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [318 

Constantine  also  abrogated  the  existing  laws  against  celi- 
bacy.1 This  step  was  essential  if  the  Christians  were  to  be 
free  to  practise  their  religion;  for  asceticism,  which  had 
come  to  be  a  directing  influence  in  Christian  philosophy, 
was  one  of  the  two  controlling  ideals  of  monasticism,  in 
which  God's  athletes  took  refuge  from  pagan  persecution 
and  the  perils  of  secular  life.  Now  that  the  persecutions 
were  over,  the  dangers  of  the  world  increased  with  the 
temptations  of  wealth  and  power,  and  there  was  a  regular 
migration  into  the  desert  just  as  the  secular  clergy  was 
beginning  to  show,  in  the  splendor  of  services  and  fine  ap- 
parel, the  new  dignity  of  a  legalized  priesthood. 

Jews  who  became  converted  to  Christianity  were  not  to 
suffer  persecution  from  their  former  religious  brethren. 
Any  attempt  to  injure  a  Jewish  convert  was  to  be  seriously 
punished.2 

A  few  years  later,  the  Corrector  of  the  South  Italian  dis- 
tricts was  advised  that  the  Christian  clergy  should  be  re- 
lieved of  all  financial  contributions  whatsoever.3  These  ex- 
emptions did  not  make  the  Christian  clergy  a  peculiarly 
favored  group  in  the  state.    They  simply  put  that  clergy  on 

1  C.  Th.  viii-16-1  (Jan.  31,  320)  "A.  ad  populum.  Qui  jure  veteri 
caelibes  habebantur,  inminentibus  legum  terroribus  liberentur  adque  ita 
vivant,  ac  si  numero  maritorum  matrimonii  foedere  fulcirentur,  sitque 
omnibus  aequa  condicio  capessendi  quod  quisque  mereatur.  Nee  vero 
quisquam  orbus  habeatur :  proposita  huic  nomini  damna  non  noceant. 
Quam  rem  et  circa  feminas  aestimamus  earumque  cervicibus  inposita 
juris  imperia  velut  quaedam  juga  solvimus  promiscue  omnibus.  Verum 
hujus  beneficii  maritis  et  uxoribus  inter  se  usurpatio  non  patebit, 
quorum  fallaces  plerumque  blanditiae  vix  etiam  opposito  juris  rigore 
cohibentur,  sed  maneat  inter  istas  personas  legum  prisca  auctorita 
(s.)".  Cf.  Corpus  Justiniani,  viii-57-1  also  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxvi  and 
Soz.,  op.  cit.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ix. 

2  C.  Th.  xvi-8-1 ;  xvi-8-5  also  Constitution es  Sirmondianae,  no.  iv. 
The  first  of  this  series  of  enactments  appeared  315,  the  last,  the  year 
before  Constantine's  death. 

3  C.  Th.  xvi-2-2  v.  infra,  p.  153. 


3iq]  legislation  for  the  CHRISTIANS  6l 

the  same  footing  as  the  priests  of  other  cults  who  had  long 
enjoyed  similar  privileges.1 

According  to  the  historians  of  the  time,  the  clergy  in 
Egypt  and  Africa  were  subsidized;2  and  Constantine  ap- 
pointed Bishop  Hosius 3  to  have  charge  of  the  church 
finances  i  and  himself  directed  personal  letters  with  gifts 
of  money  to  the  bishops.5  The  emperor,  we  are  told,  gave 
lavishly  from  his  own  private  resources  for  enlarging  and 
beautifying  the  churches,6 

The  Liber  PontiUcalis  has  a  stupendous  list  of  donations 
of  all  kinds  of  property,  both  real  and  personal,  with  which 
Constantine  was  supposed  to  have  endowed  the  churches 
during  the  pontificate  of  Sylvester.  This  Mommsen  holds 
to  be  undoubtedly  a  true  list  of  imperial  gifts,  which  were, 
however,  contributed  not  by  Constantine  alone  but  many 
emperors  throughout  the  entire  fourth  century.7  The  im- 
posing catalogue  of  churches,8  formerly  believed  to  have 
been  erected  by  Constantine,  has  suffered  at  the  relentless 
hands  of  archeologists  and  historians.     Mommsen  declares 

1  These  exemptions  granted  to  the  clergy  had  long  been  accorded  to 
doctors,  professors,  and  persons  who  had  held  expensive  priestly 
offices,    v.  Duchesne,  His.  anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  63. 

*  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  vi  also  Soz.,  op.  cit.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii.  "  He 
enacted  that  part  of  the  funds  levied  from  tributary  countries  should 
be  forwarded  by  the  various  cities  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  wherever 
they  might  be  domiciled  and  commanded  that  the  law  enjoining  this 
gift  should  be  a  statute  forever." 

3  Probably  the  bishop  of  Cordova. 

i  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  vii.  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  .p.  151.  Eus.,  H.  E., 
bk.  x,  ch.  vi. 

5  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  ii. 

6  Theodoret,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  bk.  i,  ch.  ii ;  Soc  bk.  i,  ch.  ii  and 
iii;  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xlii ;  bk.  iii,  chs.  xxix-xxxi  also  lviii.  Eunapius, 
op.  cit.,  p.  43. 

7  Liber  Pont.  ed.  Mommsen,  pp.  47-72. 

8  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  viii ;  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii. 


62  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [320 

that  there  are  only  two  churches  in  Rome  that  we  can  safely 
call  Constantinian,  those  of  St.  John  Lateran  and  old  St. 
Peter's.1  There  seems  to  be  little  reason  to  doubt  that  both 
the  Lateran  and  Vatican  churches  were  built  by  Constan- 
tine.  The  bricks  used  in  building  the  Vatican  were  stamped 
with  his  name  and  the  great  triumphal  arch  within  the  build- 
ing bore  his  dedicatory  inscription.2 

Constantine  soon  found  that  he  had  made  the  position  of 
the  Christian  clergy  too  alluring.  Men  flocked  into  the 
Church  in  order  to  escape  the  onerous  curial  burdens.     In 

1  Lib.  Pont.  ed.  Mommsen,  vol.  i,  p.  xxvii.  "Ecclesias  Christianis  Con- 
stantinum  multis  locis  aedificandas  curasse  cum  Eus.  testis  sit  {V.  C, 
vol.  i,  ch.  xlii;  vol.  ii,  ch.  xlv)  in  urbe  Roma  ad  eum  aliquatenus  certe 
redeunt  Basilicae  duae  Laterana  et  Vaticana."  Frothingham  in  his 
Monuments  of  Christian  Rome,  pp.  22  et  seq.,  accepts  many  more 
churches  as  built  by  Constantine:  St.  Paul's  Via  Ostiensis,  St. 
Lawrence's  Via  Tiburtina,  St.  Agnes  Via  Nomentana,  St.  Costanza,  SS. 
Marcellinus  and  Peter  Via  Praenestina.  Cf.  J.  Ciampini,  De  Sacris 
AediUciis,  vol.  ii,  p.  7.  Duchesne  in  I'Histoire  Ancienne  de  L'Eglise, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  63-64,  says,  "A  Rome,  la  vieille  demeure  des  Laterani  sur 
le  Coelius,  plusieurs  fois  confisquee  se  trouvait  appartenir  alors  a  Fausta, 
soeur  de  Maxence  femme  de  Constantine.  On  y  transporta  la 
residence  episcopale;  des  l'automne  313,  le  pape  Militiade  y  tenait  con- 
cile.  On  ne  put  tarder  a  commencer  la  construction  de  la  basilique 
annexee  a  cette  domus  ecclesiae,  l'Eglise  actuelle  du  Latran."  He 
then  adds  a  list  of  churches  that  owe  their  foundation  to  Constantine 
or  members  of  his  family,  cf.  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  141-2, 
ascribing  the  baptistry  to  Helena.  Cf.  Lanciani,  Pagan  and  Christian 
Rome,  pp.  132  et  seq. 

s  Lib.  Pont.  Mommsen,  vol.  i,  p.  xxvii. 

Frothingham,  The  Monuments  of  Christian  Rome,  p.  26,  "  The  proof 
of  its  Constantinian  age  was  found  in  its  stamped  bricks,  and  the 
mosaic  of  Constantine  presenting  the  model  of  the  church  to  Christ, 
which,  as  I  was  able  to  prove,  existed  on  the  triumphal  arch  until  the 
end,  must  have  been  original "  and  p.  27,  "  Constantine's  inscription  of 
the  arch  read,  addressing  Christ:  Because  led  by  Thee,  the  world 
triumphant  rises  to  the  stars,  Constantine,  victorious,  builds  this  hall 
for  Thee."  For  mention  of  another  but  corrupt  inscription  of  Con- 
stantine and  Helena  v.  Mommsen,  vol.  i,  p.  xxvii.  Also  for  dis- 
cussion of  the  builders  of  other  Churches  ascribed  to  Constantine  v. 
Mommsen,  Lib.  Pont. 


o2I]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  63 

consequence,  in  320  and  again  in  326,  men  of  curial  rank 
were  forbidden  to  become  clergymen.1  About  the  time  of 
the  first  of  these  prohibitions,  an  edict  addressed  to  the 
people  of  Rome  provided  that  a  man  might  bequeath  as 
much  of  his  property  as  desired  to  the  Church;  and  wills 
containing  gifts  of  this  sort  were  not  to  be  broken.2  Here 
again  the  emperor,  by  a  law,  sought  to  put  the  Christian 
Church  on  a  par  with  paganism,  by  allowing  it  the  corpor- 
ate rights  of  acquiring  inheritances,  long  permitted  to  pagan 
cults. 

Constantine  allotted  magisterial  duties  to  priests  when 
he  granted  them  in  316  the  right  of  manumitting  slaves.* 
Later  he  gave  important  judicial  powers  to  bishops.4  The 
day  of  the  Sun  was  counted  among  the  legal  holidays,5  and 
leisure  was  given  Christians  in  the  army  to  attend  religious 
services  on  that  day.  Sozomen  adds  that  Friday  too  was 
to  be  honored  in  remembrance  of  what  Jesus  Christ  had 
achieved  on  that  day.6     Every  Sunday  non-Christian  sol- 

1  C.  Th.  xvi-2-3  also  xvi-2-6;  cf.  xvi-2-7;  likewise  V.  C,  vol.  i,  bk.  iv. 
For  the  date  of  the  law  in  C.  Th.  xvi-2-3,  v.  Mommsen's  note. 

-  C.  Th.,  xvi-2-4.  See  Godefroy's  commentary  on  this.  For  text  v. 
infra,  p.  154. 

s  C.  /..,  i,  13-1  and  2;  Th.  C,  iv,  7,  1 5  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ix.  For  text 
v.  infra,  p.  154. 

4  C.  S.,  no.  1  permitting  men  to  have  cases  tried  in  a  bishop's 
court.  For  the  text  and  its  interpretation,  vide  infra,  p.  156;  c/. 
Sextus  Aurelius  Victor,  De  Caesaribus,  p.  305-  After  establish- 
ing himself  in  Licinius'  territory  in  324,  Constantine  decreed  for 
the  East  that  the  "  decisions  of  Bishops  in  Synods  were  not  to 
be  annulled  by  provincial  governors;  for  he  judged  the  priest  of 
God  at  a  higher  value  than  any  judge  whatever."  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch. 
xxvii.  Vide  infra,  p.  155  for  C.  Th.  i-27-1,  for  the  law  giving  parties 
in  civil  controversies  the  right  of  electing  between  ordinary  courts  and 
the  courts  of  the  bishops. 

5C.  Th.,  ii-8-1,  v.  infra,  p.  158;  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xviii ;  Soz.,  bk.  i, 
ch.  viii ;  undoubtedly  the  day  of  the  Sun  was  selected  as  the  holy  day  of 
the  followers  of  both  Jesus  and  Mithras.    Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xviii. 

6Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  181,  rejects  the  validity  of  this  state- 


64  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [322 

diers  were  to  assemble  in  the  open  plains  near  the  city  and 
recite  a  prayer  that  had  been  taught  them,  saying  in  uni- 
son, "  We  acknowledge  thee  the  only  God.  We  own  thee 
as  our  King  and  implore  thy  succor.  By  thy  favor  have  we 
gotten  victory ;  through  thee  are  we  mightier  than  our  ene- 
mies. We  render  thanks  for  thy  past  benefits  and  trust  thee 
for  future  blessings;  together  we  pray  thee  and  beseech  thee 
long  to  preserve  us  safe  and  triumphant,  our  emperor,  Con- 
stantine  and  his  pious  sons."  x  A  better  prayer  could  not 
well  be  imagined  for  the  purpose  for  which  this  was  drawn 
up.  No  person  could  be  offended  in  his  conscience  in  com- 
plying with  the  emperor's  command  to  say  it  once  a  week 
in  public.  The  Divinitas  who  was  invoked  was  as  vague  as 
that  referred  to  in  the  Decree  of  Nicomedia  and  could  an- 
swer to  the  Christian  God  or  any  other  deity  popular  in 
Rome  at  the  time.  Notice  how  the  prayer  closed  in  patri- 
otic emotion  with  a  swirl  of  loyalty  to  the  imperial  house. 
We  are  reminded  of  the  union  of  religion  and  patriotism 
that  Augustus  found  so  valuable. 

In  323,  Constantine  decreed  that  Christians  should  not  be 
required  to  make  lustral  sacrifices  and  any  one  attempting 
to  force  a  Christian  to  observe  the  rites  of  some  other  re- 
ligion should  be  severely  punished.2 

Eusebius  3  informs  us  that,  after  his  vision,  Constantine 
sent  for  Christian  clergymen  to  learn  the  meaning  of  what 
he  had  seen.  These  teachers  instructed  the  emperor  in  the 
principles  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  from  that  time  forth 
the  clergy  were  his  counsellors.     After  the  battle  of  the 

ment,  pointing  out  that  Sozomen  alone  mentions  it.  An  unsuccessful 
attempt  to  observe  Friday  was  made  near  Constantinople  in  the  fifth 
century. 

1  V.  C.  bk.  iv,  ch.  viii,  note  2.  Appears  to  have  been  issued  321 
before  which  time  both  the  old  and  new  Sabbaths  were  observed  by 
Christians.     Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  chs.  xix-xxi.     Cf.  Orat.  Eus.,  ch.  ix,  par.  10. 

2  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  5.    V.  infra,  p.  159  for  text.  3  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xxxii. 


323]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  65 

Milvian  Bridge,  Eusebius  tells  us  that  the  victor  showed 
especial  honor  to  the  Christian  clergy,  entertaining  them 
at  his  table  and  making  them  his  companions  on  his  travels.1 
Constantine  soon  found  he  needed  all  his  information  on 
Christian  doctrine.  The  dogmas  of  organized  Christianity- 
are  so  subtle  and  complex  that,  where  any  free  discussion 
of  them  is  allowed,  diverse  interpretations  will  invariably 
be  advanced.  In  the  fourth  century,  Africa  and  Egypt  were 
hot-beds  of  religious  altercation  and  civil  peace  was  de- 
stroyed by  religious  disagreements  of  Christians.  Early  in 
313  the  Donatists  appealed  to  Constantine  through  Anuli- 
nus,  the  proconsul  of  Africa.2  Constantine's  reply  3  was  a 
letter  to  Miltiades,  bishop  of  Rome,  ordering  him  to  hold 
a  synod  before  which  the  case  of  Caecilianus,  Bishop  of 
Carthage,  could  be  heard.  When  the  Donatists  refused  to 
be  content  with  the  decision  of  this  synod,  a  second  assem- 
bly of  the  bishops  was  held,  at  the  emperor's  command,  at 
Aries  in  the  following  year.4  Again  the  stubborn,  puritan- 
ical Donatists  appealed  to  the  emperor  from  the  judgment 
of  the  synod.  In  316  the  emperor  heard  their  case  at  Milan, 
and  confirmed  the  decision  of  the  councils,  shortly  after- 
ward passing  laws  condemning  their  tenets  and  threatening 
to  banish  their  bishops  and  to  confiscate  their  property. 

Constantine's  actions  and  attitude  in  this  Donatist  con- 
troversy are  in  exact  line  with  his  procedure  a  decade  later 
when  he  called  the  Council  of  Nicaea  to  settle  the  dispute 
between  Arius  and  Athanasius.  In  either  situation  we 
might  regard  the  emperor  as  the  fostering  friend  of  the 
Church,  eager  for  peace  within  her  walls,  practically  the 
temporal  head  of  Christianity  as  he  was  the  priestly  head 
of  paganism.  We  shall  do  well,  however,  to  remember  that 
the  altercations  over  Donatism,  as  over  Arianism,  led  to< 

1  V.  C,  bk.  i,  ch.  xlii.  *  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v.        s  Ibid. 

*  Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v,  Epistle  to  the  Bishop  of  Syracuse. 


66  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [324 

serious  civil  disturbances.  Citizens  of  all  classes  in  Africa 
and  Egypt  took  sides  in  these  burning  religious  contro- 
versies. Commonly  a  heated  discussion  of  their  views  led 
men  to  abandon  the  battle  of  tongues,  to  fall  upon  one 
another  with  any  weapon  at  hand.  Lives  were  sacrificed 
and  property  destroyed  in  these  riots.  To  restore  order  in 
these  districts  would  be  the  pressing  duty  of  the  Emperor. 
If  only  as  the  source  of  law  and  the  chief  executive  in  the 
state,  Constantine  was  bound  to  take  some  action  in  such 
a  condition  of  affairs.  So  much  for  the  main  legislation 
of  Constantine  affecting  the  Christians  during  the  period 
when  he  was  joint  ruler  of  the  Roman  state  with  Licinius. 

The  friendship  of  Constantine  and  Licinius,  that  had 
been  cemented  by  the  marriage  of  Constantine  with  Lici- 
nius' sister,  was  not  established  on  a  sure  foundation,  and 
was  so  shaken  by  the  politics  of  314,  that  the  two  men 
went  to  war.  Licinius  had  to  acknowledge  his  defeat  at 
Constantine's  hand  and  to  pay  with  the  cession  of  Illyria 
the  price  of  a  peace  that  was  to  endure  only  ten  years. 
During  this  interim  of  peace,  Licinius,  the  earlier  protector 
of  the  Christians,  became  their  oppressor.1    In  consequence, 

1  Eusebius  would  have  us  believe  that  this  final  struggle  between 
Constantine  and  Licinius  was  a  conflict  between  Christianity  and 
paganism.  He  cites  the  invocation  of  Licinius  to  the  gods  just  before 
the  decisive  battle  as  evidence  of  this  view;  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v.  We 
feel,  however,  suspicious  of  the  reporter's  touch  when  we  read  this 
alleged  invocation.  Zos.,  ch.  ii,  pp.  44  et  seq.,  says  the  cause  of  the 
break  in  the  friendship  of  the  two  emperors  was  the  infidelity  and 
ambition  of  Constantine  and  Eutropius  agrees.  Libanius  and  Anon. 
Val.  declare  that  Licinius  broke  the  peace.  Cf.  Soc,  bk.  i,  chs.  iii-iv. 
According  to  Gorres  Die  Licinianische  Christenverfolgung,  pp.  5  et  seq. 
Licinius  began  to  persecute  the  Christians  about  319.  He  seems,  in  his 
growing  jealousy  and  dislike  of  Constantine,  to  have  suspected  the 
Christians  of  conspiring  against  him  in  favor  of  Constantine.  Al- 
though he  had  not  apparently  shown  them  the  favors  Constantine  had 
in  the  West,  he  had  not  been  hostile  to  them  up  to  this  time.  Even 
now  the  persecution  seems  to  have  been  mild  and  limited  in  character. 
See  note  5,  McGiffert,  p.  3S4,  II,  E. 


325]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  & 

when  in  324,1  Constantine  overthrew  Licinius'  power,  and 
added  all  his  territory  to  his  own,  the  conqueror  entered 
his  rival's  territory  as  the  restorer  of  Christian  liberties. 

Constantine,  now  the  sole  emperor  of  the  Roman  world, 
lost  no  time  in  assuring  the  Christians  of  the  East  that 
they  should  enjoy  the  same  happy  lot  as  had  their  co- 
religionists in  the  West  uninterruptedly  since  312.  Chris- 
tians who  had  suffered  in  person  or  property  under  Lici- 
nius were  to  be  released  from  the  penalties  they  were  en- 
during for  their  faith.  Eusebius  2  informs  us  that  the  em- 
peror published  edicts  to  this  end;  one  directed  to  the 
Christian  Church  and  one  to  the  heathen  population  of 
the  newly-conquered  provinces.3  Eusebius  has  transmitted 
a  copy  of  that  sent  to  the  heathen."  The  latter  opens  with 
a  lengthy  disquisition  on  the  benefits  that  fall  to  Christians, 
while  calamities  are  the  lot  of  men  who  show  contempt  or 
hostility  to  the  Christian  religion.  The  emperor  traces  the 
manifold  evils  that  have  afflicted  all  humanity  to  the  per- 
secutions heaped  upon  the  Christians.  He  recognizes  him- 
self as  the  instrument  chosen  by  God  to  banish  evil,  and 
recall  men  to  the  observance  of  the  holy  laws  of  God.  Al- 
ready, he  declares,  he  has  worked  God's  will  in  the  West, 
and  now  he  views  the  pressing  need  for  reform  measures 

1  The  pretext  for  the  war  was  a  dispute  of  the  two  emperors  over 
border  territory  along  the  Danube  frontier.  Constantine  began  the 
actual  warfare  by  invading  Licinius'  territory.  Two  battles,  one  at 
Adrianople,  the  other  at  Chrysopolis,  gave  Constantine  two  victories 
which  forced  Licinius  to  surrender  and  to  acknowledge  Constantine 
sovereign  in  both  West  and  East.  Seeck,  Neue  und  Alte  Daten  zur 
Geschichte  Diocletians  und  Constantine,  in  Rheinisches  Museum  fur 
Philologie  1907,  vol.  lxii,  p.  493  gives  the  date  324  although  Mommsen 
holds  to  323.   Cf.  Mediaeval  History,  vol.  i,  ch.  iv  for  support  of  Seeck. 

5  H.  E.,  bk.  x.  ch.  ix ;  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xx. 

*  V,  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xxiii. 

4  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xxiv-xlii.    Cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii  also  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  p.  51. 


68  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [326 

in  the  East.  Thereupon  follows  a  long  list  of  laws,  af- 
fecting a  great  variety  of  cases  of  persecution  under  Lici- 
nius'  rule.  Christians  were  to  be  released  from  exile  and 
from  service  in  the  civil  courts.1  Those  who  had  been  ban- 
ished to  islands  were  to  be  recalled,  while  men  who  had 
been  condemned  to  service  in  the  mines,  or  in  public  works, 
or  women's  apartments  were  to  be  freed.  Property  that 
had  been  confiscated  from  the  Christians  was  to  be  restored 
to  them.  Provision  was  made  for  finding  the  heirs  of 
martyrs  and  handing  over  to  them  the  inheritance  they  had 
had  to  forego.  Not  only  private  individuals,  but  the  im- 
perial treasury  itself  must  restore  property  that  had  been 
taken  from  Christians.  The  rescript  closed  with  a  fervent 
exhortation  that  all  men  should  worship  God. 

There  is  no  internal  evidence  that  this  document  was  dic- 
tated by  a  Christian.  Its  author,  while  stating  that  Chris- 
tianity was  a  religion  pleasing  to  Supreme  God  and  him- 
self acknowledging  the  power  of  Almighty  God,  whose 
agent  on  earth  he  believes  himself,  nowhere  states  in  the 
letter  that  Christianity  is  the  only  true  religion.  What- 
ever Constantine  may  have  felt  in  his  own  heart  at  this 
time,  he  politicly  refrained  in  this  mandate  to  the  pagans, 
from  unduly  exalting  Christianity.  The  provisions  of  the 
rescript  merely  restored  Christians  in  the  East  to  the  rights 
and  privileges  they  had  enjoyed  so  long  as  Licinius  con- 
tinued to  observe  his  Decree  of  Nicomedia. 

The  commands  of  the  rescript  were  speedily  carried 
out.  In  reorganizing  his  new  territories,  Constantine  drew 
up  laws  and  dispatched  letters  on  religious  matters.2  Euse- 
bius  tells  us  3  that  a  statute  was  passed  and  sent  to  the  pro- 
vincial governors   for   increasing  the   height  and   size  of 

1  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xxx.  *  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  chs.  xliv-xlv. 

s  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xlv ;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii. 


327]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  &g 

churches,  "  as  though  it  were  expected  that,  now  the  mad- 
ness of  polytheism  were  wholly  removed,  pretty  nearly  all- 
mankind  would  henceforth  attach  themselves  to  the  service 
of  God."  The  governors  were  instructed  to  spare  no  ex- 
pense in  making  these  alterations  but  were  to  draw  upon 
the  imperial  treasury  itself.  These  directions  were  sent  to 
the  bishops  as  well  as  to  the  provincial  governors,  and 
Eusebius  records  that  this  is  the  first  occasion  in  which  the 
emperor  personally  addressed  a  letter  to  him.1 

Another  letter  of  greater  importance,  in  the  Emperor's 
own  handwriting,  was  addressed  to  the  inhabitants  of 
every  province  in  the  East.2  Eusebius  says  that  in  it  Con- 
stantine  discussed  the  error  of  idolatry  and  exhorted  his 
subjects  to  acknowledge  the  Supreme  God  and  openiy  to 
profess  their  allegiance  to  his  Christ  as  their  Saviour.3 
Examining  the  letter,  it  proves  to  be  a  curious,  rambling 
document.  It  opens  with  a  brief  explanation  of  the  value 
of  vice  as  a  foil  for  virtue  and  then  sketches  the  persecu- 
tion of  the  Christians  during  the  emperor's  own  lifetime. 
Constantine,  in  phraseology  that  reminds  us  of  the  lan- 
guage of  a  Methodist  experience  meeting,  bears  witness  that 
the  "  Lord  of  All  "  has  been  his  protector,  and  that  "  God's 
sacred  sign  "  has  led  him  to  victories.4  From  time  to  time 
the  royal  author  abandons  the  form  of  an  official  document 
in  the  letter,  and  makes  direct  invocations  to  God,  to  whom 
he  ascribes  glory  and  honor  for  the  good  gifts  he  has  vouch- 
safed mankind.  In  spite  of  the  odd  style  and  the  medley 
of  contents,  the  document  contributes  noteworthy  infor- 
mation to  our  study  of  Constantine's  religious  policy  for 
his  Eastern  subjects. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  chs.  xlv-xlvi;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii. 

2  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  chs.  xlvii-lx. 

3  Ibid.,  ch.  xlvii.  i  Ibid.,  ch.  lv. 


jO  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [328 

As  in  the  policy  of  312  in  the  West,  so  now  in  the  East, 
toleration  for  all  men  was  granted  and  insistently  de- 
manded. This  toleration,  the  emperor  hoped,  would  lead 
men  to  leave  paganism  for  Christianity.  Besides,  toleration 
was  necessary  for  the  concord  that  Constantine  declared 
he  wished  all  mankind  to  enjoy.  Therefore,  Constantine 
decreed  that  every  man  was  to  be  free,  in  religious  matters, 
to  do  as  his  soul  pleased,  and  no  man  was  to  interfere  with 
his  neighbor's  religious  liberty.  He  declared  that  Chris- 
tianity was  the  only  religion  whose  followers  could  live  lives 
of  holiness  and  purity,  but  as  for  the  devotees  of  other  cults 
"let  them  have,  if  they  please,  their  temples  of  lies;  we 
have  the  glorious  edifice  of  the  truth  which  thou  hast  given 
us  as  our  native  home."  x  Even  while  speaking  thus  con- 
temptuously of  paganism,  the  legislator  was  careful  to  for- 
bid any  man  coercing  his  neighbor  into  becoming  a  Chris- 
tian, "  For  it  is  one  thing  voluntarily  to  undertake  the  con- 
flict for  immortality,  another  thing  to  compel  others  to  do 
so  for  fear  of  punishment."  Constantine  excused  himself 
for  going  into  great  detail  in  the  letter,  but  he  said  he  was 
most  anxious  not  to  deceive  nor  to  be  false  to  the  true 
faith.  Furthermore  he  had  learned  that  some  people  were 
declaring  that  the  rites  of  the  heathen  temples  were  abol- 
ished ;  "  we  should  indeed  have  earnestly  recommended 
such  removal  to  all  men,  were  it  not  that  the  rebellious 
spirit  of  those  wicked  errors  still  continues  obstinately  fixed 
in  the  minds  of  some  so  as  to  discourage  the  hope  of  any 
general  restoration  of  mankind  to  the  ways  of  truth." 

There  is  no  doubt  in  this  document  as  to  the  identitv  of 
the  God  the  Emperor  invoked;  but  while  Constantine 
ranged  himself  unmistakeably  on  the  Christian  side  and 
referred  scornfully  to  paganism,  he  provided  carefully  that 

1  For  discussion  of  the  translation  of  this  phrase,  see  V.  C,  p.  514, 
note  2. 


o 


29]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  yi 


pagans  should  have  complete  religious  independence  in 
faith  and  in  worship.  Both  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  this 
document  display  a  determined  policy  of  religious  tolera- 
tion. Hitherto,  in  publishing  a  religious  policy,  Constan- 
tine  had  been  associated  with  some  other  emperor;  now  he 
was  standing  alone,  at  the  head  of  the  whole  state,  declar- 
ing what  was  to  be  his  attitude  in  religious  affairs  for  the 
territory  lately  ruled  over  by  Licinius.  Yet  the  religious 
platform  of  324  is  identical  with  that  of  312-3,  providing 
complete  religious  independence  for  all  his  subjects. 

Whatever  hand  drew  up  this  letter,  Constantine,  by  pub- 
lishing it,  subscribed  to  its  contents.  His  willingness  to 
stand  now  as  a  Christian  may  have  been  due  to  one  or 
more  of  various  reasons.  There  were  in  the  East  vastly 
larger  numbers  of  Christians  than  were  to  be  found  in  the 
West,  and  during  the  decade  since  312,  the  world  had  grown 
used  to  Constantine's  patronage  of  Christianity.  As  has 
been  suggested  above,1  Licinius'  paganism  may  have  neces- 
sitated ambiguous  references  to  a  Deity  in  the  Edict  of 
Milan,  while  only  now  Constantine  may  have  felt  free  to 
express  his  personal  view  in  regard  to  the  Divinity.  Even 
if  Constantine  had  been  converted  to  Christianity  by  312, 
he  must  in  the  interval  have  become  better  acquainted  with 
the  nature  of  the  Christian  God  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  in  regard  to  Jesus.  On  the  other  hand,  the  possi- 
bility ever  remains  that  this  edict  may  mark  the  real  transi- 
tion of  Constantine  from  paganism  to  Christianity  in  the 
matter  of  his  own  personal  faith. 

While  Constantine  was  directing  this  series  of  letters  for 
his  Eastern  subjects,  he  was,  Eusebius  informs  us,  pre- 
ferring Christians  to  pagans  when  appointing  governors  in 
the  East; 2  "  and  if  any  appeared  inclined  to  adhere  to  the 

1  Vide,  p.  57.  2  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xliii. 


72  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [330 

Gentile  worship,  he  forbade  them  to  offer  sacrifices.  This 
law  applied  also  to  those  who  surpassed  the  provincial 
governors  in  rank  and  dignity,1  and  even  to  those  who  oc- 
cupied the  highest  station  and  held  the  authority  of  the 
Praetorian  Praefecture.  If  they  were  Christians  they  were 
free  to  act  consistently  with  their  profession;  if  otherwise, 
the  law  required  them  to  abstain  from  idolatrous  sacri- 
fices." 2  The  wording  of  the  law  seems  to  require  the  in- 
terpretation that,  while  occupying  any  one  of  these  special 
offices,  a  pagan  might  not  even  in  a  private  capacity,  assist 
at  a  public  sacrifice;  for  it  is  particularly  stated  that  Chris- 
tian officials  were  to  be  "  free  to  act  consistently  with  their 
profession,"  while  pagans  were  required  "  to  abstain  from 
idolatrous  sacrifices."  It  seems  unreasonable,  in  the  face 
of  Constantine's  promise  of  toleration,  to  believe  that  this 
enactment  was  intended  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  a 
pagan  official's  religious  behavior  at  home.  In  his  own 
house  he  must  have  been  free  to  perform  any  religious  rite 
he  chose;  but  in  public  he  must  keep  his  hands  from  sac- 
rificing. 

The  importance  of  this  law  is  patent,  for,  while  not  in- 
terfering with  the  religious  liberty  of  individuals,  it  di- 
vorced the  old  religious  rites  from  the  public  offices  in  the 
East.  So  anxious  was  the  Emperor  to  make  his  intention 
plain,  that  he  forbade  an  office  holder,  even  unofficially, 
from  assisting  at  a  sacrifice,  lest  it  might  seem  that  the 
rite,  in  some  way,  were  connected  with  the  government 
office  he  held. 

It  is  true  that  the  ancient  religion  of  Rome  made  little 

1  Namely  proconsuls,  vicars  or  vice-prefects,  counts  or  provincial 
generals.  Cf.  Theod.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ii,  "He  appointed  Christians  to  be  gov- 
ernors of  the  provinces  ordering  honor  to  be  shown  to  priests  and 
threatening  with  death  those  who  dared  to  insult  them." 

*  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xliv.     Cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii. 


33 1  j  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  73 

personal  appeal  to  men  of  the  fourth  century,  who  were 
greatly   attracted   to   the   various   Oriental   cults   and   the 
Greek  philosophies.     St.  Augustine  was  pouring  his  satire 
and  invective  upon  dead  ashes  x  when  he  inveighed  against 
the  worship  of  the  great  company  of  old  Roman  deities, 
but    Firmicus    Maternus 2  and    Prudentius 3  knew    better 
where  the  fires  of  paganism  were  blazing,  and  they  directed 
their  efforts  to  quench  the  popular  Oriental  cults  which 
were  the  serious  rivals  to  Christianity.4     Nevertheless,  it 
was  the  old  cult  of  the  Republic,  re-invigorated  and  modi- 
fied, but  not  materially  altered  by  Augustus,  that  still  con- 
tinued to  be  the  state  religion  of  the  Roman  Empire.     In 
the  state  religion,  the  Romans  had  from  immemorial  times 
recognized  a  definite  part  of  the  machinery  of  state,  and 
appointed  magistrates  or  citizens  to  act  as  priests  to  fulfil 
with  legal  exactness  the  jus  divinum  that  was  allied  with 
the  jus  humanum.     The  creed  of  the  state  religion  had  be- 
come little  more  than  a  glorified  patriotism,5  centering  in  the 
deified  person  of  the  emperor,  and  was  not  incompatible 
with  that  of  any  other  cult  except  those  of  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  the  two  intolerant  religions  of  the  time.    Look- 
ing back  upon  the  impressive  development  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  citizens  saw  the  thread  of  the  state  religion  inter- 

1  De  Civitate  Dei,  passim. 

2  De  Errore  profanarum  religionum.  s  Contra  Symmachum. 

4  Cumont,  Les  Religions  orientates  dans  le  Paganisme  Romain,  p.  244 
says  very  justly  that  St.  Augustine  made  here  the  common  mistake 
of  students  who  study  books  instead  of  facts.  While  he  used  Varro, 
Prudentius  and  Firmicus  Maternus  used  their  eyes  and  described  the 
paganism  that  throve  about  them. 

6  Cumont,  op.  cit.,  p.  246,  says  the  national  religion  of  Rome  had  no 
real  life.  Although  great  personages  might  still  assume  the  titles  of 
augurs,  etc.,  as  they  did  those  of  consul  or  tribune,  these  religious 
titles  had  as  little  power  left  them  as  had  the  religious.  The  decline 
of  the  state  religion  dates  from  the  day  when  Aurelian  set  above  the 
ancient  pontiffs  those  of  the  invincible  Sun,  the  protector  of  his  empire. 


74  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [332 

woven  in  the  fabric  of  Roman  history.1  Therefore  to  cut 
or  mar  this  shining  thread  would  seem,  even  to  the  pagan 
whose  intellect  scorned  the  puerilities  of  the  national  re- 
ligion, to  spoil  and  injure  irreparably  the  material  itself, 
and  yet  it  was  this  very  thing  that  Constantine  seemed  to 
be  planning  in  the  East. 

In  the  West  it  would  have  been  exceedingly  difficult  for 
Constantine  to  attempt  to  discontinue  the  sacrifice  con- 
nected with  public  offices.  Even  in  the  East  where  Chris- 
tianity had  so  much  larger  a  following  this  was  a  radical 
step.  Yet  the  act  seems  a  natural  one  to  expect  from  the 
ruler  who  reiterated  the  toleration  policy  of  312-3  in  324. 
while  there  is  no  denying  that  this  law  in  the  Orient  dis- 
solved one  of  the  important  bonds  of  union  between  the 
state  and  the  ancient  religion,  it  is  plain  that  there  was  no 
intention  to  substitute  the  rites  of  another  cult  for  those 
that  had  been  set  aside.  The  offices  affected  by  the  enact- 
ment were  made  purely  secular,  stripped  of  all  religious 
duties.  To  pagans  of  the  time  this  must  have  seemed  small 
consolation  in  the  face  of  an  act  that  impiously  disregarded 
fundamental  national  principles.  Many  patriotic  pagans 
and  ardent  Christians  must  have  believed  Constantine  ani- 
mated by  a  spirit  hostile  to  the  religion  of  ancient  Rome, 
when  he  drew  up  this  decree.  To-day,  viewing  the  enact- 
ment in  the  light  of  the  Emperor's  declared  religious  policy, 
it  may  have  been  less  an  actual  attack  upon  paganism,  than 
a  further  attempt  to  maintain  absolute  parity  between 
Christianity  and  paganism.  As  long  as  pagan  rites  were 
required,  or  permitted  to  office  holders,  Christians  were  at 

1  The  idea  that  the  greatness  of  the  Roman  empire  was  the  outcome 
of  piety  had  been  advanced  by  poets  and  statesmen.  Cicero  used 
this  idea  in  a  speech  and  put  it  into  .the  mouth  of  the  Stoic  in 
De  Natura  Deonim.  Christian  apologists  had  to  combat  this  idea 
which  was  as  old  as  Rome  itself.  Vide,  Glover,  Conflict  of  Religions  in 
the  Early  Roman  Empire,  p.  7. 


333]  LEGISLATION  FOR  THE  CHRISTIANS  75 

some  disadvantage.  Furthermore,  by  allowing  its  servants 
to  perform  customary  sacrifices,  the  government  would 
seem  to  be  sanctioning  bonds  between  the  state  and  a  re- 
ligion out  of  harmony  with  the  personal  cult  of  the  sov- 
ereign. Finally,  in  the  last  analysis,  to  maintain  strict  re- 
ligious neutrality  in  the  state  in  which  various  hostile  relig- 
ious groups  flourished,  a  government  must  free  itself  from 
all  bonds  of  union  with  any  cult,  and  make  itself  rigorously 
unreligious.  The  law  of  Constantine  appears  to  pursue  this 
line  of  action  and  hence  seems  rather  to  belong  with  the  pro- 
Christian  than  the  anti-pagan  legislation. 

Eusebius  informs  us  that  Constantine  "  also  passed  a  law 
to  the  effect  that  no  Christian  should  remain  in  servitude 
to  a  Jewish  master,  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  be  right 
that  those  whom  the  Saviour  had  ransomed  should  be  sub- 
jected to  the  yoke  of  slavery  by  a  people  who  had  slain  the 
prophets  and  the  Lord  himself.  If  any  were  found  here- 
after in  these  circumstances,  the  slave  was  to  be  set  at  lib- 
erty, and  the  master  punished  by  a  fine."  x 

In  addition  to  this  direct  evidence  of  Constantine's  atti- 
tude, there  are  other  facts  which  have  been  claimed  by  his 
Christian  apologists  as  proof  of  his  Christian  spirit  and 
policy.  In  any  case  they  stand  certainly  as  witnesses  to  his 
humane  temper.  He  gave  liberally  to  the  Christian  poor 
and  especially  singled  out  the  virgins  to  receive  richly  of 
his  charity.2  Shortly  after  taking  Rome,  he  abolished  cru- 
cifixion. He  passed  a  law  commanding  that  no  one  in 
future  should  be  branded  in  the  face.4     In  320  he  com- 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxvii.    Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  9,  1,  also  C.  S.,  no.  4. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxviii. 

* "  Vetus  veterrimumque  supplicium  patibulorum  et  cruribus  suffri- 
gendis  primus  removerit."  Sex.  Aur.  Victor  de  Caes.  xli.  Cf.  Soz.,  bk. 
i,  ch.  viii ;  also  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xviii. 

4  C.  Th.,  ix,  40,  2.     V.  infra,  p.  161  for  text. 


76  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [334 

manded  that  prisoners  awaiting  trial,  should  be  allowed 
light  and  air,  and  unless  there  were  grave  danger  that  they 
might  otherwise  escape,  they  should  not  be  chained.  Trials 
should  follow  arrest  as  speedily  as  possible.1  In  315  Con- 
stantine  decreed  for  Italy,  and  in  322  for  Africa,  and  ap- 
parently other  provinces  as  well,  that  the  fiscus  and  the 
private  purse  of  the  emperor  should  be  liable  for  the  main- 
tenance of  all  children  whose  fathers  declared  themselves 
too  poor  to  care  for  them.2  Although  exposure  of  children 
was  not  punishable  by  law  until  374,  this  provision  of  Con- 
stantine  certainly  must  have  lowered  the  number  of  infan- 
ticides while  it  secured  to  many  children  material  care  their 
parents  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  give  them.  In  divid- 
ing estates,  members  of  a  slave  family  were  not  to  be  separ- 
ated.3 There  is  also  a  law  in  his  name  expressing  disap- 
proval of  gladiatorial  shows  and  perhaps  intending  to  abol- 
ish them.4  Constantine  drew  up  also  many  laws  to  protect 
widows,  orphans  and  minors.5 

1  C.  Th.,  ix-3-1.    Cf.  C.  Th.  ix-3-2. 

2  C.  Th.  v-9-1.     The  falling  off  in  population  may  have  made  this  law 
a  political  measure  pure  and  simple.     Cf.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ix. 

8  C.  Th.  ii,  25,  1. 

4  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii.    C.  Th.,  xv-12-1.     Cf.  C.  J.,  xi,  44,  1.    For  text 
and  discussion  of  these  laws  v.  infra,  p.  161. 

5  C.  Th.  i,  22,  2;  iii.  30,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5;  ix,  21,  4. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Legislation  Affecting  Paganism 

In  spite  of  his  concessions  to  Christianity  in  the  West 
and  the  East,  and  his  evident  devotion  to  that  religion, 
Constantine  remained  the  recognized  head  of  paganism, 
and  held  the  title  of  Pontifex  Maximus  to  the  time  of  his 
death.1  We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  assurance 
of  protection  to  paganism  in  Constantine's  edicts  of  toler- 
ation for  Christianity.  To  weigh  Constantine's  recorded 
actions  affecting  paganism,  and  to  determine  from  them 
how  far  he  fulfilled  his  promises  of  toleration,  constitute 
now  our  immediate  problems. 

In  the  legal  codes  there  is  a  comparatively  small  amount 
of  Constantinian  legislation  having  to  do  directly  with 
paganism.  Much  of  our  evidence  for  Constantine's  attitude 
towards  paganism,  as  gathered  from  these  sources,  is  ob- 
tained by  a  process  of  negative  inference.  The  rich  dower- 
ing of  the  Church,  and  the  persistent  fostering  of  its  or- 
ganization, of  a  truth,  mark  a  decline  in  the  power  of 
paganism.     As  Christianity  waxed,  paganism  was  bound  to 

1  An  edict  of  328  gave  him  the  title  of  Pontifex  Maximus.  Tillemont, 
op.  cit.,  bk.  i,  p.  139,  "says  there  is  no  proof  that  Constantine  and  his 
successors  themselves  took  this  title  which  was  ascribed  to  them  by 
others.  He  points  out  that  Sozomen  in  saying  Julian  took  the  title, 
mentions  it,  not  as  a  part  of  his  royal  dignity,  but  as  a  piece  of  his 
apostasy,  and  that  Zosimus,  living  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  was 
not  capable  of  telling  us  whether  Constantine  and  his  successors  took 
the  title  and  robe.  The  inscriptions  prove  nothing  since  Gratian  who 
patently  hated  the  title  is  given  it  in  an  inscription. 

335]  77 


78  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [336 

wane,  even  under  a  policy  of  avowed  toleration  for  all.1 
That,  however,  might  have  been  the  result  of  circumstances, 
and  not  the  conscious  wish  of  the  Emperor. 

Although  little  legislation  against  paganism  during  this 
reign  is  to  be  found  in  either  the  Theodosian  or  the  Jus- 
tinian Codes,  the  historians  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
have  much  to  say  concerning  the  measures  Constantine 
took  to  restrict,  if  not  to  crush,  paganism.  They  record  that 
he  destroyed  or  closed  the  temples,2  sometimes  transferring 
their  income  to  churches.3     Eusebius  states  positively  that 

1  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  vi,  "  under  the  government  of  Constantine  the 
Churches  flourished  and  increased  in  numbers  daily,  since  they  were 
honored  by  the  good  deeds  of  a  benevolent  and  well-disposed 
emperor." 

a  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  i ;  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  iii,  declares  that  Constantine 
embraced  Christianity  after  his  victory  over  Maxentius  and  "  also 
either  closed  or  destroyed  the  temples  of  the  pagans  and  exposed 
the  images  which  were  in  them  to  popular  contempt."  Eunap.,  Vit. 
Aed.,  p.  43,  "  Then  Constantine  was  reigning  who  overturned  the  most 
celebrated  temples  to  raise  Churches  upon  their  ruins."  Orosius, 
Adversum  Paganos,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xxvii,  "  Turn  deinde  primus  Con- 
stantino, justo  ordine  et  pio,  vicem  vertet  edicto  si  quidem  statuit 
citra  ullam  hominum  caedem  paganorum  templa  claudi."  Cf.  Anon. 
Vol.  lines  34,  35.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii,  declares  that  after  the  final 
defeat  of  Licinius,  Constantine  took  measures  so  that:  "the  worship 
of  false  gods  was  universally  prohibited;  and  the  arts  of  divination, 
the  dedication  of  statues,  and  the  celebration  of  pagan  festivals  were 
interdicted."  Cf.  Malalas,  Chronographia  in  Corpus  Byzantinae  His- 
toriae,  bk.  xiii,  "And  therefore  without  delay  he  overturned  temples 
and  shrines."  Theod.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ii,  "  the  temples  of  the  idols  were 
closed."  Prosperi  Teronis  Epitoma  Chronicon  in  Chronica  Minora,  p. 
1035.  "  Edicto  Constantini  gentilium  templa  subversa  sunt."  Soc, 
bk.  i,  ch.  xviii,  "  after  this  the  emperor  became  increasingly  attentive 
to  the  interests  of  the  Christians  and  abandoned  the  heathen  super- 
stitions." This  chronology  is  curious;  the  statement  follows  the 
mention  of  the  founding  of  Constantinople  but  precedes  the  account 
of  the  destruction  of  temples  in  the  East.    Compare  the  order  in  Eusebius. 

*  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  vii,  §  13.  "  Our  emperor,  as  the  delegate  of  the 
Supreme   Sovereign,  has    followed   up  the  victory,   bearing  away  the 


337 J  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  79 

his  adored  emperor  razed  to  their  foundations  the  temples 
that  had  been  the  chief  objects  of  superstitious  reverence; x 
nevertheless,  the  only  accounts  that  we  possess  of  the  de- 
struction of  specific  temples,  are  of  those  with  whose  ser- 
vices some  notorious  rites  were  connected,  or  whose  exist- 
ence was  a  distinct  outrage  to  Christian  sentiment  in  the 
community.  Let  us  examine  the  stories  of  the  destruction 
of  particular  temples. 

On  the  supposed  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  a  temple  to 
Venus  had  been  erected.  Eusebius  says  2  that  before  Con- 
stantine's  rule,  no  governor  or  military  commander  had 
had  the  power  to  abolish  the  worship  at  its  altars.  It  must 
have  seemed  the  height  of  impiety  and  indecency  to  Chris- 
tians, that  a  heathen  shrine  should  have  stood  on  the  tradi- 
tional place  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  their  Saviour.3 
There  were  reasons,  however,  why  this  goddess'  temple 
may  have  been  execrated  by  pagans,  as  well  as  Christians. 

spoils  of  those  who  have  long  since  died  and  mouldered  into  dust 
and  distributing  the  plunder  with  lavish  hand  among  the  soldiers  of 
his  victorious  Lord."  Also  Chronicon  Paschale  in  C.  B.  H.,  vol.  iv, 
p.  282.  "  Eodem  anno,  Constantinus,  cum  solus  Romanorum  praeesset 
imperio,  omnia  ubique  idola  dejecit,  eorumque  pecuniis  omnibus  et 
possessionibus  ablatis  universas  Christi  ecclesias  omnesque  Christianos 
ei  donavit."  This  chronicle,  closing  with  the  year  627,  was  probably- 
compiled  between  631  and  641.  There  is  a  later  continuation  carrying 
it  into  the  eleventh  century. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  i. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  ii,  "They  had  honored  demons  with  offerings; 
Constantine  exposed  their  error  and  continually  distributed  the  now 
useless  materials  for  sacrifice  to  those  who  would  apply  them  to  a 
better  use.  They  had  ordered  the  pagan  temples  to  be  sumptuously 
adorned :  he  razed  to  their  foundations  those  of  them  which  had 
been  the  chief  objects  of  superstitious  reverence."  Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iii, 
chs.  xxv  et  seq. 

8  A  temple  of  Venus  is  believed  to  have  been  built  by  Hadrian  on 
the  site  of  Calvary.  The  sepulchre  of  Jesus  was  held  to  have  been 
on  Calvary. 


g0  TOLERATION  UNDER  C0NST4NTINE  [338 

Immoral  practices,  severely  condemned  by  devoted  pagans, 
were  connected  with  the  worship  of  Venus  throughout  the 
Empire,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  rites  at  this  especial  tem-> 
pie  were  not  above  reproach.  So  there  may  have  been  a 
double  reason  for  the  drastic  measures  to  which  Constan- 
tine  resorted.  He  ordered,  not  only  that  the  temple  be  de- 
stroyed, but  that  the  stone  and  wood  of  which  it  had  been 
constructed  be  removed  to  a  distance.  The  polluted  ground, 
he  commanded  dug  up  to  a  great  depth  and  carried  away. 
On  this  purified  site  the  Emperor  erected  a  magnificent 
church.  Eusebius  has  preserved  the  minute  instructions 
Constantine  gave  for  the  architectural  plans  and  ornamen- 
tation of  the  structure.1 

The  Emperor's  mother,  Helena,  likewise  interested  her- 
self in  building  churches  in  localities  associated  with  the 
life  of  Jesus.2  With  her  visit  to  Jerusalem  is  connected 
the  story  of  the  finding  of  the  cross  upon  which  Jesus  was 
believed  to  have  suffered.3 

Eutropia,  the  mother  of  Fausta,  informed  her  son-in- 
law  that  in  Palestine  the  Oak  of  Mamre,  a  spot  associated 
with  Abraham  and  Jesus,  was  polluted  with  shrines,  and  an 
altar  on  which  sacrifices  were  continually  offered.4  Con- 
stantine instructed  Count  Acacius  to  tear  down,  and  burn 
the  idols,  and  overturn  the  altars.  In  place  of  the  demol- 
ished temple  the  Emperor  ordered  a  church  built;  and,  in 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  chs.  xxx-xl. 

*  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  chs.  xlii-xliii.  Cf.  Theod.,  bk.  i,  ch.  v  and  Soc,  bk.  i, 
ch.  ix,  epistle  to  Macarius  also  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  i. 

8  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xvii ;  also  Theod.,  bk.  i,  ch.  xvii.  For  critical  dis- 
cussion of  the  finding  of  the  cross  v.  Duchesne  Lib.  Pont.,  vol.  i, 
p.  cviii. 

4  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  chs.  li-liii.  Cf.  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xviii.  Soz.,  bk.  ii, 
ch.  iv  says  that  Constantine  "  rebuked  the  bishops  of  Palestine  in  no 
measured  terms  because  they  had  neglected  their  duty  and  had  per- 
mitted a  holy  place  to  be  defiled  by  impure  libation  and  sacrifices." 


o39]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  gl 

future,  any  one  guilty  of  impiety  of  any  kind  in  that  place 
was  to  be  visited  with  condign  punishment.1 

The  temples  of  Venus  at  Aphaca  on  Mt.  Lebanon,  and 
at  Heliopolis  in  Phoenicia,  were  plague  spots  in  those  com- 
munities, and  their  destruction  by  Constantine  must  have 
been  welcomed  by  all  men  of  character,  whether  pagan  or 
Christian.2  At  Aegae  in  Cilicia,  stood  a  temple  to  Escula- 
pius.  Grave  charges  were  made,  now  and  again,  against  the 
conduct  of  suppliants  who  sought  the  cure  for  a  malady 
in  visiting,  or  passing  a  night,  in  one  of  the  temples  dedi- 
cated to  this  god  of  healing.  Whether  the  charges  were  all 
well-founded  or  not,  they  were  as  fervently  believed  by 
some  as  they  were  hotly  denied  by  others.  We  hold  that 
Constantine,  in  destroying  the  temple  in  Cilicia,  was  acting 
in  what  he  considered  the  cause  of  public  morals,  rather 
than  religion.3 

Besides  destroying  temples  whose  existence  offended 
moralists  by  the  notorious  practices  connected  with  them, 
and  others  whose  location  outraged  Christian  sensibilities, 
the  historians  record  that  Constantine  brought  about  the 
delapidation  of  others  in  the  East,  as  a  means  merely  of  re- 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  liii ;  cf.  iSoz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  iv. 

2  V.  C.,  bk.  iii,  chs.  Iv  and  lviii ;  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xviii ;  Soz.,  bk.  ii, 
ch.  v.  For  the  persistence  of  the  worship  of  Venus  at  Heliopolis  after 
Constantine's  death,  v.  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  207.  It  is  follow- 
ing the  description  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Venus  on  Mt. 
Lebanon  that  Eusebius  bursts  forth  into  a  paean  "and  henceforward 
peace,  the  happy  nurse  of  youth,  extended  her  reign  throughout  the 
world.  Wars  were  no  more  for  the  gods  were  not:  no  more  did 
warfare  in  country  or  town,  no  more  did  the  effusion  of  human 
blood,  distress  mankind,  as  heretofore  when  demon-worship  and  the 
madness  of  idolatry  prevailed."     Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  viii,  par.  9. 

8  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  lvi.  Eusebius  places  these  events  between  the 
founding  of  Constantinople  and  the  deposition  of  S.  Eustathius  330-1. 
St.  Jerome  sets  them  in  the  year  331.  The  temple  of  Esculapius  was 
probably  afterwards  restored  v.  Chastel,  op.  cit.,  p.  74. 


82  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [340 

buking  "  the  superstitious  errors  of  the  heathen  ".1  In  sev- 
eral cities,  the  emperor  ordered  the  doors  and  roofs  of 
temples  to  be  removed,  thus  exposing  the  buildings  to  the 
weather;  while  statues  of  brass,  silver  and  gold  were  re- 
moved.2 This  last  work  was  done,  not  by  soldiers,  but  by 
a  few  friends  of  the  Emperor  who  were  empowered  to  carry 
out  the  imperial  will  in  each  province.  The  method  these 
men  employed  was  simple  and  direct.3  They  ordered 
priests,  "  midst  general  laughter  and  scorn  ",  to  bring  out 
the  idols  from  the  temples.  "  They  then  stripped  them  of 
their  ornaments,  and  exhibited  to  the  gaze  of  all  the  un- 
sightly reality  which  had  been  hidden  beneath  a  painted 
exterior.  Lastly,  whatever  part  of  the  material  appeared 
valuable,  they  scraped  off  and  melted  in  the  fire  to  prove  its 
worth,  after  which  they  secured  and  set  apart  whatever 
they  judged  needful  for  their  purpose,  leaving  to  the  super- 
stitious worshipers  that  which  was  altogether  useless,  as  a 
memorial  of  their  shame."  4  "  The  bronze  images  which 
were  skillfully  wrought  were  carried  to  the  city  named 
after  the  Emperor,  and  placed  there  as  objects  of  embellish- 
ment." 5  During  these  proceedings  "  the  people  were  in- 
duced to  remain  passive  from  the  fear  that  if  they  resisted 
these  edicts,  they,  their  children  and  their  wives,  would  be 
exposed  to  evil."  6 

It  looks  very  much  as  though  Eusebius,  and  other  histor- 
ians of  the  century,  were  wrong  in  ascribing  to  Constantine 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  liv;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v. 

s  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  viii,  par.  1.  "For  as  soon  as  he  understood  that  the 
ignorant  multitudes  were  inspired  with  a  vain  and  childish  dread  of 
these  bugbears  of  error,  wrought  in  gold  and  silver,  he  judged  it  right 
to  remove  these  also,  like  stumbling  blocks  thrown  in  the  path  of  men 
walking  in  the  dark  and  henceforth  to  open  a  royal  road,  plain  and 
unobstructed,  to  all." 

8  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  liv;  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  viii;  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v. 

*V.  C,  tic.  iii.  ch.  liv.  5  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v.  6Soz.,  ibid. 


34l ]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  83 

a  purpose  to  bring  ridicule  and  destruction  on  paganism  by 
removing  doors,  and  roofs,  and  valuable  statues.  There 
was  no  destruction  of  idols  as  such;  simply  the  removal  of 
valuable  metal  statues,  or  the  appropriating  of  costly  ma- 
terial. Constantine  could  thus  acquire  cheaply  a  quantity 
of  expensive  metals,  that  would  be  useful  in  the  improve- 
ment and  expansion  of  his  new  capital.  The  work  of  de- 
molition was  carried  on  by  small  numbers  of  men  without 
military  assistance,  so  that  we  are  led  to  believe  that,  either 
the  communities  were  not  intensely  pagan,  or  no  serious 
injury  was  felt  to  have  been  done  the  pagan  cults  them- 
selves. Henry  VIII  was  still  a  son  of  Mother  Church,  con- 
templating no  attack  upon  the  Catholic  religion,  when,  with 
the  assistance  of  Wolsey,  he  began  to  gather  into  his  cof- 
fers the  wealth  of  Englisn  monasteries. 

The  fact,  however,  remained  that  temples  had  been 
robbed  of  valuable  objects  by  imperial  orders,  and  that  this 
had  been  accomplished  in  ruthless,  anti-pagan  fashion ;  and 
indirectly,  the  cause  of  paganism  suffered.  As  a  result  of 
the  discredit  cast  upon  the  idols  by  the  commissioners'  treat- 
ment, there  were  some  conversions  to  Christianity.1    Other 

1  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v:  "The  efforts  of  the  Emperor  succeeded  to  the 
utmost  of  his  anticipation;  for  on  beholding  the  objects  of  their  former 
reverence  and  fear  boldly  cast  down  and  stuffed  with  straw  and  hay, 
the  people  were  led  to  despise  what  they  had  previously  overrated,  and 
to  blame  the  erroneous  opinion  of  their  ancestors.  Others,  envious 
at  the  honor  in  which  the  Christians  were  held  by  the  Emperor,  deemed 
it  necessary  to  imitate  the  acts  of  the  ruler;  others  devoted  them- 
selves to  an  examination  of  Christianity,  and  by  means  of  signs,  of 
dreams,  or  of  conferences  with  bishops  and  monks  were  convinced 
that  it  was  better  to  become  Christians."  Cf.  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  x : 
"  Hence  the  universal  change  for  the  better,  which  leads  men  to  spurn 
their  lifeless  idols,  to  trample  under  foot  the  lawless  rites  of  their 
demon  deities,  and  laugh  to  scorn  the  time  honored  follies  of  their 
fathers.  Hence,  too,  the  establishment  in  every  place  of  those  schools 
of  sacred  learning,  wherein  men  are  taught  the  precepts  of  saving 
truth,  and  dread  no  more  those  objects  of  creation  which  are  seen  by 
the  natural  eye,  nor  direct  a  gaze  of  wonder  at  the  sun,  the  moon 
or  stars." 


84  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [342 

pagans,  although  led  by  these  events  to  despise  their  re- 
ligion, would  not  ally  themselves  with  Christianity.1 

Indirectly,  Constantine  must  have  been  responsible  for 
the  injury  to,  or  destruction  of,  many  other  pagan  temples. 
Some  localities  were  not  slow  to  see  the  advantage  of 
adopting  the  religion  that  enjoyed  the  emperor's  peculiar 
favor;  others,  undoubtedly,  at  last  felt  free  to  allow  the 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  to  show  their  dislike  of  pagan- 
ism. Gaza,  called  Majuma,  where  "  superstition  and  the 
ancient  ceremonies  "  had  held  sway  heretofore,  turned  with 
all  its  inhabitants  to  Christianity,  and  was  raised,  in  conse- 
quence, to  the  rank  of  a  city,  and  received  the  new  name  of 
Constantia.2  "  Numbers  too  in  the  other  provinces,  both  in 
the  cities  and  the  country,  became  willing  enquirers  after 
the  saving  knowledge  of  God,  destroyed  as  worthless  things, 
the  images  of  every  kind  which  they  had  heretofore  held 
most  sacred,  voluntarily  demolished  the  lofty  temples  and 
shrines  which  contained  them ;  and  renouncing  their  former 
sentiments,  or  rather,  errors,  commenced  and  completed 
entirely  new  churches,"  3 

1  V .  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  lvii :  "  Hence  it  was  that,  of  those  who  had  been 
the  slaves  of  superstition,  when  they  saw  with  their  own  eyes  the 
exposure  of  their  delusion,  and  beheld  the  actual  ruin  of  the  temples 
and  images  in  every  place,  some  applied  themselves  to  the  saving  doc- 
trine of  Christ;  while  others,  though  they  declined  to  take  this  step, 
yet  reprobated  the  folly  which  they  had  received  from  their  fathers, 
and  laughed  to  scorn  what  they  had  so  long  been  accustomed  to 
regard  as  gods." 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxviii.  A  similar  course  of  events  occurred  in 
other  cities,  cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxix ;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v.  Soz.,  bk. 
ii,  ch.  vi  says  that  Christianity  gained  such  numbers  of  converts  in  the 
empire,  that  the  "  religion  was  introduced  even  among  the  barbarians 
themselves.  The  tribes  on  both  sides  of  the  Rhine  were  Christian- 
ized, as  likewise  the  Celts  and  the  Gauls  who  dwelt  upon  the  most  dis- 
tant shores  of  the  ocean." 

s  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxix ;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  v. 


343]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  85 

It  was  only  in  the  East  that  temples  were  despoiled  and 
destroyed  and  Christians  preferred  to  pagans  for  public 
offices;  in  the  West,  temples  seem  to  have  suffered  no  dam- 
age, and  paganism  was  no  disqualification  for  office.  In- 
scriptions show  that  a  number  of  nobles  who  served  as 
consuls,  prefects,  and  augurs,  were  initiated  into  the  re- 
ligion of  Hecate  or  Mithra.1  Nevertheless  it  was  in  the 
West,  before  the  overthrow  of  Licinius,  that  Constantine 
drew  up  all  his  laws  touching  divination  and  magic  that 
have  been  preserved  in  the  codes.  It  is  fortunate  that  we 
possess  this  series  of  laws  with  which  to  check  up  the  ex- 
travagant statements  of  the  chroniclers,2  who  assure  us  that 
the  emperor  forbade  divination  and  magic. 

In  the  old  state  religion  of  Rome,  a  recognized  part  of  the 
jus  divinum,  whose  object  was  to  establish  the  pax  deorum, 
was  the  jus  augurale,  whose  particular  province  it  was  to 
ascertain  the  mind  of  divinity,  to  learn  whether  or  not,  the 
gods  were  favorable  to  some  human  undertaking  or  de- 
sire. There  came  to  be  built  up  a  system  of  divina- 
tion, authorized  by  statute,  and  quite  apart  from  pri- 
vate   divination    that    was    strictly    forbidden;    and    the 

1  C.  I.  L.,  vol.  vi,  no.  1675,  Alfenio  Ceionio  Juliano  Kamenio  V.  C.  Q.  K. 
praetori  tri  umf.  vii,  viro  epulonum.  mag.  p.  sc.  summi  invicti  mitrai 
ierofante  aecate  arcb  de  ilib.  xv  viro.  s  e  tauroboliato.  d  m  pontifici 
majori  consula  ri  provinciae  numidiae  justitiae  ejus  provisionibusq. 
confotis  omnibus  dioceseos.  Kamenius  was  prefect  of  the  city  in  333. 
Cf.  vol.  vi,  nos.  1690,  1694  and  vol.  x,  no.  5061.  Cf.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat. 
ch.  vi,  p.  98. 

2  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xlv  also  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxv.  "  He  issued  successive  laws 
and  ordinances,  forbidding  any  to  offer  sacrifice  to  idols,  to  consult 
diviners,  to  erect  images."  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii,  "the  arts  of  divination, 
the  dedication  of  statues  and  the  celebration  of  pagan  festivals  were 
interdicted."  Also  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  Ii,  Constantine  had  found  diviners' 
predictions  realized  and  "he  was  afraid  that  others  might  be  told 
something  which  should  fall  out  to  his  misfortune,  and  for  that  reason 
applied  himself  to  the  abolishing  of  the  practice." 


86  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [344 

pontifex  maximus  and  the  augurs  were  charged  with 
the  observance  of  this  jus  augur  ale.  It  is  not  difficult 
to  understand  why  it  seemed  necessary  to  the  government 
to  prevent  private  divination,  which  might  bring  about 
great  harm  to  an  individual  or  a  whole  community.  As 
Fowler  well  remarks,  "  as  the  jus  divinum  tended  to  ex- 
clude magic  and  the  barbarous  in  ritual,  so  did  the  jus 
augurale,  which  was  a  part  of  it,  exclude  the  quack  in  divi- 
nation." 1 

The  ritual  of  divination  was  colored  by  Etruscan  influ- 
ence and  the  common  word,  haruspex,  is  Etruscan  in  origin, 
meaning  a  person  trained  in  the  threefold  art  of  divination, 
interpretation  of  lightning,  and  the  explanation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  entrails  of  victims  and  portents  and  prodi- 
gies. From  the  Orient  came  flocks  of  men  whose  profes- 
sion it  was  to  read  the  future.  Of  these,  the  soothsayers, 
the  Chaldaei,  and  the  mathematici,  were  interested  largely 
in  astrology.  Associated  with  them  were  the  magi,  and 
malefici — the  magicians — who  were  regarded  as  undesirable 
persons.  In  the  Theodosian  Code,  as  in  recent  works  on 
primitive  religions,  divination  and  magic  are  closely  asso- 
ciated. In  actuality  they  were  quite  dissimilar,  although 
they  both  dealt  with  man's  relation  to  the  future.  In  divi- 
nation, man  attempted  to  learn  the  heavenly  attitude;  in 
magic  he  sought  to  shape  the  ends  of  human  destiny  to  his 
own  liking. 

As  far  back  as  Cicero's  time,  educated  men  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  question  whether  there  were  such  a  thing  as  divina- 
tion at  all,  while  the  mass  of  men  at  this  very  time  were  re- 
lying, more  and  more,  upon  irregular,  or  private,  divination. 
That  divination  was  still  considered  by  some  educated  men 
of  the  fourth  century  A.  D.  as  a  valuable  part  of  religion 

1  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People,  p.  296. 


345]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  87 

is  proved  by  Ammianus  Marcellinus'  expression  of  his  opin- 
ion of  the  worth  of  divination: 

Auguries  and  auspices  are  not  collected  from  the  will  of  birds 
who  are  themselves  ignorant  of  the  future  (for  there  is  no 
one  so  silly  as  to  say  that  they  understand  it)  :  but  God  directs 
the  flight  of  birds,  so  that  the  sound  of  their  beaks,  or  the 
motion  of  their  feathers,  whether  quiet  or  disturbed,  indicates 
the  character  of  the  future.  For  the  kindness  of  the  deity, 
whether  it  be  that  men  deserve  it,  or  that  he  is  touched  by 
affection  for  them,  likes  by  these  acts  to  give  information  of 
what  is  impending.  Again,  those  who  attend  to  the  prophetic 
entrails  of  cattle,  which  often  take  all  kinds  of  shapes,  learn 
from  them  what  happens.  .  .  .  Men  too,  when  their  hearts 
are  at  a  state  of  excitement,  foretell  the  future,  but  these  are 
speaking  under  divine  inspiration.1 

Let  us  examine  now  Constantine's  legislation  in  regard 
to  divination  and  magic. 

The  first  of  these  laws  was  published  February,  319.  It 
forbade  private  soothsaying  and  threatened  with  burning 
any  haruspex  who  went  to  another  man's  house.  The  per- 
son who  urged  the  haruspex  to  come  was  to  be  banished 
and  suffer  the  confiscation  of  his  property.  The  reporters 
of  the  offenses  were  to  be  rewarded,  and  not  considered  as 
delators.  Nevertheless,  men  were  distinctly  assured  that 
they  might  celebrate  these  rites  publicly,  although  the  ob- 
servances were  scornfully  labelled  as  "  superstitions  ".2 
Did  this  edict  so  disturb  the  populace  of  Rome,  that  it  was 
necessary  to  publish  a  second,  and  explanatory  edict  within 
a  few  months?  3    At  all  events,  in  May  of  the  same  year  a 

xBk.  xxi,  ch.  i,  pars.  9-11. 

2  C.  Th.,  ix-i6-i,  v.  infra,  p.  162  for  text. 

3  Cf.  Schultze,  Konstantin  und  die  Haruspicin  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1886, 
vol.  viii,  p.  520. 


&g  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [346 

mandate  was  addressed  directly  to  the  people  of  the  city, 
assuring  them  that  the  emperor  was  not  proposing  to  abol- 
ish all  divination.  More  definitely,  than  in  the  earlier  de- 
cree, the  people  were  reminded  that  they  might  go  to  the 
public  altars  and  shrines  without  hindrance,  provided  they 
did  so  by  day.  At  the  same  time  private  soothsaying  was 
again  forbidden  under  threat  of  severe  penalty.1  In  this 
second  document  not  only  were  soothsayers  mentioned,  but 
priests  of  prophecy,  and  those  who  had  to  do  with  the  ad- 
ministering of  the  rites  of  divination,  were  referred  to.  In 
both  of  these  laws  only  private  soothsaying  was  prohibited. 
It  is  evident  from  the  second  edict,  that  nocturnal  rites  at 
public  shrines  were  disapproved  of,  if  they  had  not  been 
actually  forbidden.2 

Two  or  more  years  later  the  emperor  carefully  distin- 
guished between  good  and  bad  magic,  and  as  the  chief 
censor  of  social  behavior,  sternly  denounced  black  art.3 
Magicians  or  men,  who,  through  occult  power,  brought  mis- 
fortune upon  other  men,  or  worked  the  moral  undoing  of 
their  fellows,  should  be  dealt  with  in  severest  fashion.  But 
not  for  a  minute  can  anyone  see  in  this  law  a  wholesale 
condemnation  of  all  magic;  for  the  lawgiver  proceeded  to 
commend  the  kindly  art  that  was  used  to  bring  about  cures 
for  the  ills  of  men's  bodies,  or  to  preserve  the  work  of  their 
hands.  Constantine  in  this  edict  judged  a  magical  art, 
purely  and  simply,  on  the  score  of  its  results.     Did  a  man 

1  C.  Th.  ix-16-2.  v.  infra,  p.  163  for  text. 

*  Tillemont  believes  that  in  Constantine's  laws  against  divination  we 
can  see  his  contempt  for  paganism!  He  says  that  Baronius  describes 
this  law  to  the  Romans  as  a  shameful  attempt  to  satisfy  the  people 
who  were  aroused  at  the  thought  that  he  wished  to  abolish  their 
religion.  Tillemont  himself  thinks  Constantine  permits  in  his  legis- 
lation on  divination  what  he  does  not  dare  forbid.     V.  vol.  iv,  p.  173. 

3  C.  Th.  ix-16-3,  vide  infra,  p.  163  for  text. 


347]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  89 

suffer  in  estate  or  soul  through  the  power  of  a  magician? 
Then  the  power  that  wrought  such  evil  was  worthy  of 
harsh  punishment.  Did  certain  acts  prevent  the  destruction 
of  God's  gifts  and  man's  labors?  Then,  judging  by  the  re- 
sults, such  deeds  were  laudable.  Whereas  men  had  been 
encouraged  1  to  report  any  infringement  of  the  law  against 
soothsaying,  they  were  now  informed  that  beneficent  magi- 
cal acts  were  not  to  be  made  the  subject  of  legal  complaint. 
There  was,  of  course,  nothing  novel  in  this  differentiation 
between  good  and  bad  magic,  but  this  law  of  Constantine 
repeats  the  accepted  distinction,  and  stamps  the  former  with 
approval. 

In  the  year  320-1,  the  Flavian  amphitheatre  was  struck 
by  lightning.  Now  a  thunder  bolt  was  one  of  the  recog- 
nized vehicles  for  the  transmission  of  the  gods'  will  to  man, 
and  in  consequence,  any  lightning-struck  object  must  be 
searchingly  considered  in  order  to  learn  the  divine  message. 
On  this  particular  occasion,  Constantine  thought  it  worth 
while  to  make  an  official  statement  ~  to  the  urban  prefect 
that,  in  future,  whenever  lightning  struck  the  palace  or  any 
other  public  building,  all  old  customs  were  to  be  preserved, 
and  the  haruspices  were  to*  be  called  upon  and  their  verdicts 
reported  severally  to  the  Emperor.3  Constantine  further 
ordered  that  licenses  to  practise  divination  should  continue 
to  be  given.  All  haruspices,  however,  were  to  remember 
that  while  public  divination  was  permissible,  private  divi- 
nation had  been  strictly  forbidden.  Undoubtedly  this  ref- 
erence was  to  the  prohibitions  in  the  two  laws  of  319. 

These   four  documents  that  we  have  been  considering 

1  C.  Th.  ix-16-1.  2  C.  Th.  xvi-10-1,  vide  infra,  p.  164  for  text. 

*  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  173,  holds  that  the  requirement  that  the 
findings  of  the  haruspices  be  submitted  to  the  Emperor  was  a  yoke 
on  the  pagans.  He  seems  to  forget  that  the  Emperor  was  pontifex 
maximus,  the  legal  head  of  paganism. 


po  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [348 

constitute  our  only  reliable  sources  for  Constantine's  legis- 
lation on  divination.  His  attitude  in  these  laws  does  not 
seem  anti-pagan ;  there  was  here  no  attack,  open  or  hidden, 
on  paganism.1  His  position  was  exactly  that  of  his  purely 
pagan  predecessors,  who  realized  the  danger  of  unrestricted 
divination  in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  men.  Diviners 
and  magicians  wielded  powers  fraught  with  great  dangers 
to  individuals  and  government.  They  could  easily  gain  the 
ascendency  over  weak  minds  and  move  them  to  do  their 
will.2  The  diviner  could  work  infinite  harm  to  the  govern- 
ment with  his  readings  of  the  future.  Hence  the  state  had 
long  sought  to  control  divination  and  make  illegal  all  inde- 
pendent, unauthorized  divination.  From  ancient  times  the 
clear  distinction  had  been  drawn  between  good  and  bad 
magic.  Malevolent  magic  was  severely  dealt  with  in  the 
Twelve  Tables ;  and  thereafter  the  prohibition  against  it  was 
renewed  from  time  to  time.3  In  the  Empire  it  was  found 
that  the  practice  of  foretelling  the  future  of  individuals! 
had  the  tendency  to  foster  conspiracies  against  the  emperor. 
The  heart  of  an  ambitious  malcontent  might  easily  be 
stirred  to  treasonable  acts  when  he  found  himself  desig- 
nated by  a  diviner,  as  the  man  who  was  next  to  wear  the 
purple.  Several  emperors  passed  laws  against  magicians. 
Others  decided  to  monopolize  the  knowledge  of  the  future 
by  controlling  the  machinery  for  foretelling  it,  and  in  con- 

1  We  cannot  agree  with  Schultze,  Konstantin  und  die  Haruspicin  in 
Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1886,  vol.  viii,  p.  527  that  all  private  sacrifices  were 
hereby  forbidden  for  it  seems  clear  that  only  sacrifices  connected 
with  divination  were  prohibited.  We  must  believe  that  private  wor- 
ship of  any  kind,  other  than  rites  connected  with  magic  would  be  the 
last  expression  of  pagan  cults  to  come  under  the  imperial  ban. 

8  Cf.  present-day  action  in  London  against  Oriental  soothsayers  and 
in  New  York  against  palmists. 

3  Cf.  Hubert,  art.  Magia  in  Daremberg,  Saglio  and  Pottier's  Dic- 
tionnaire  des  Antiquites,  Grecques  et  Romaines. 


o4q]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  91 

sequence  drew  many  astrologers  to  their  courts  while  they 
banished  them  from  other  parts  of  the  empire.1  Tiberius 
prohibited  secret  consultation  of  haruspices  and  in  his  reign 
a  decree  of  the  Senate  banished  magicians  and  astrologers.2 
Nero  punished  magicians  severely,  and  even  classed  philoso- 
phers with  magicians.  Caracalla  penalized  what  seems  a 
harmless  enough  superstition:  the  wearing  of  amulets  for 
the  cure  of  ailments.  He  ordered  those  who  performed,  or 
caused  to  be  performed,  nocturnal  rites  for  the  purpose  of 
bewitching  anyone,  to  be  crucified  or  thrown  to  the  wild 
beasts.  Some  magicians  were  to  be  burned  alive.  The 
knowledge,  as  well  as  the  practice,  of  the  art  of  magic  was 
forbidden ;  all  books  on  magic  were  to  be  burned  and  their 
possessors  to  be  deported  or  to  suffer  capital  punishment, 
according  to  their  rank.  Under  Diocletian  astrology  (ars 
mathematical)  was  formally  proscribed.3 

Certainly  this  chain  of  evidence  is  strong  enough  to  bear 
the  conclusion,  that  there  was  nothing  anti-pagan  or  pro- 
Christian  in  Constantine's  legislation  on  divination  and 
magic.  This  conclusion,  however,  does  not  exclude  the 
opinion  that  Constantine,  personally,  had  no  great  faith  in 
the  infallibility  of  divination  and  magic.  His  skepticism  in 
this  matter  antedated  the  battle  of  the  Milvian  Bridge.4 

1  Fowler,  op.  cit.,  p.  397  says  that  Cato  advised  that  a  steward  of 
an  estate  be  strictly  forbidden  to  consult  Chaldaei,  harioli  or  haruspices. 
Cf.  Cumont,  Religions  orientates,  p.  230. 

8  Maury,  La  Magie  et  I'Astrologie  dans  I'antiquite  et  au  Moyen  Age, 
P-  77- 

3  Artem  geometriae  discere  atque  exerceri  publice  intersit.  Ars 
autem  mathematica  damnabilis  interdicta  est.    a.  294.    C.  J.,  ix,  18,  2. 

4  V.  supra,  p.  28,  note  3.  See  Zosimus,  bk.  ii,  p.  51,  for  statement  that 
Constantine  had  great  faith  in  divination,  supra,  p.  24.  For  the  popu- 
larity of  magic  among  Christians  at  this  time,  v.  Mansi,  Sacrorum  Con- 
ciliorum  Nova  et  Amplissima  Collectio,  vol.  ii,  col.  1019.    Cf.  ibid.,  col.  522. 


o2  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [350 

Eusebius  would  have  us  believe  that  Constantine  did  not 
content  himself  with  prohibiting-  sacrifices  connected  with 
divination,  but  that  after  324  he  hampered  idolatry,  and 
prohibited  every  kind  of  sacrifice.  There  are  three  separate 
statements  in  his  works  to  the  effect  that  sacrifices  were  for- 
bidden. The  first  occurs  directly  after  his  account  of  how 
officials  were  forbidden  to  perform  sacrifices.  It  runs  as 
follows:  "  Soon  after  this  two  laws  were  promulgated', 
about  the  same  time;  one  of  which  was  intended  to  restrain 
the  idolatrous  abominations  which  in  time  past  had  been 
practised  in  every  city  and  country ;  and  it  provided  that  no 
one  should  erect  images,  or  practise  divination  and  other 
false  and  foolish  arts,  or  offer  sacrifice  in  any  way."  x  In 
the  fourth  book  of  the  Vita,  which  is  largely  given  over  to 
enthusiastic  descriptions  of  Constantine's  Christian  virtues, 
are  found  the  second  and  third  references.  The  earlier  of 
these  reads  as  follows:  "At  the  same  time,  his  subjects, 
both  civil  and  military,  throughout  the  empire,  found  a 
barrier  everywhere  opposed  against  idol  worship,  and  every 
kind  of  sacrifice  forbidden."  2  In  the  following  chapter 
Eusebius  also  states  that  once,  in  a  company  of  bishops,  the 
Emperor  declared  in  his  hearing,  "  you  are  bishops  whose 
jurisdiction  is  within  the  Church:  I  also  am  a  bishop,  or- 

"  Qui  vaticinantur  et  gentium  consuetudines  sequuntur  vel  in  suas 
aedes  aliquos  introducunt  ad  medicamentorum  inventionem,  vel  lus- 
trationem,  in  quinquennii  canonem  incidant  secundum  gradus  prae- 
finitos,  tres  annos  substrationis,  et  duos  annos  orationis  sine  oblatione." 
Cf.  ibid.,  col.  569.  "  Quod  non  oportet  eos,  qui  sunt  sacrati,  vel  clerici, 
esse  magos,  vel  incantatores,  vel  mathematicos,  vel  astrologos,  vel 
facere  ea  quae  dicuntur  amuleta,  quae  quidem  sunt  ipsarum  animarum 
vincula:  eos  autem  qui  ferunt,  ejici  ex  ecclesia  jussimus." 

1  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xlv.  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  174,  believes  this  refers  to 
the  republishing  of  the  laws  against  divination.  Cf.  Theod.,  bk.  i, 
ch.  ii,  "  He  enacted  laws  prohibiting  sacrifices  to  idols." 

2  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxiii. 


35I]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  93 

dained  by  God  to  overlook  whatever  is  external  to  the 
Church."  ..."  Consistently,  with  this  zeal,  he  issued  suc- 
cessive laws  and  ordinances,  forbidding  any  to  offer  sacri- 
fice to  idols,  to  consult  diviners,  to  erect  images,  or  to  pol- 
lute the  cities  with  the  sanguinary  combat  of  gladiators." 

There  is  in  a  decree  of  Constantius,  drawn  up  in  341,  a 
reference  to  a  law  of  Constantine,  in  which  sacrifice  had 
been  prohibited.2  Some  scholars,3  founding  their  opinion  on 
this  reference  and  the  statements  of  Eusebius  quoted  above, 
believe  that  Constantine,  rather  late  in  his  career,  did  pub- 
lish an  edict,  now  lost,  which  forbade  all  sacrifices.  Other 
historians  hesitate4  to  believe  that  a  sweeping  law  was 
promulgated  against  all  sacrifices  and  some  deny  5  that  any 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  chs.  xxiv-xxv.  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii,  states  that  "  the 
worship  of  false  gods  was  universally  prohibited  and  the  dedication  of 
statues  and  the  celebration  of  pagan  festivals  interdicted." 

2  C.  Th.  xvi-10-2.     For  full  text  v.  infra,  pp.  175-6. 

8  Chastel,  op.  cit.,  p.  61 ;  Schultze,  Gesch.  d.  Unter.  d.  griech.  rom. 
Held.,  p.  56  with  note  3;  Boissier,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  72.  Cf.  Pauly- 
Wissowa,  op.  cit.,  in  vol.  iv,  col.  1024.  Tillemont  has  an  interesting 
marshalling  of  some  of  the  evidence  for  and  against  accepting  the  ex- 
istence of  this  law.     V.  vol.  iv,  pp.  202-3. 

4  Duchesne,  L.  His.  anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  pp.  76-7-  "  Comme  nous 
n'avons  pas  le  texte  de  la  loi  Constantienne,  il  serait  difficile  d'afhrmer 
qu'elle  ait  prohibe  les  sacrifices  sans  reserves  ni  distinctions.  Peut- 
etre  s'agissait-il  comme  pour  l'aruspicine,  de  ceremonies  interdites  dans 
les  maisons  privees,  et  tolerees  dans  les  temples." 

5  Burckhardt,  op.  cit.,  p.  361,  thinks  the  appeals  Firmicus  Maternus 
hurled  at  Constantius  proof  positive  against  accepting  the  statement 
that  idols  were  banned  by  Constantine.  Beugnot,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  p.  ioo, 
believes  Constantine  may  have  published  a  law  that  was,  however,  so 
little  different  from  those  directed  against  secret  divination,  that  it 
was  not  included  in  the  Code.  In  Constantius'  law  he  takes  "super- 
stitio"  to  have  the  pagan  connotation  and  "  sacrifkiorum  insania "  to 
refer  to  magical  rites.  Hence  he  concludes,  that  Constantine  in  draw- 
ing up  an  earlier  law  similar  to  this,  was  acting  not  as  a  Christian, 
but   as  the    sovereign  pontiff,   whose    duty   it   was   to  keep   the   state 


94  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [352 

prohibition  was  uttered  against  general  sacrifices  during  his 
reign.  Did,  or  did  not,  Constantine  before  his  death  nullify 
the  broad  toleration  he  had  proclaimed  in  the  West  and  the 
East,  by  forbidding  pagans  to  observe  the  solemn  sacrifices 
required  by  their  faith  ?  Our  answer  to  this  question  must 
follow  a  weighing  of  the  sources.  Against  the  statement 
of  the  Christian  Eusebius  that  Constantine  did  forbid  sac- 
rifices, we  can  place  the  equally  dogmatic  statement  of  the 
pagan  Libanius  to  the  contrary.1  As  we  saw  in  the  matter 
of  the  legislation  against  divination,  Eusebius  and  other 
Christian  historians  of  that  age,  are  not  always  trustworthy 
when  reporting  actions  of  the  emperor  that  affect  pagan- 
ism. They  are  too  keenly  anxious  to  represent  Constantine 
as  undermining  pagan  cults,  and  consequently,  read  into 
laws  more  than  the  author  intended.  The  law  of  Constan- 
tius  that  is  supposed  to  contain  the  reference  to  the  lost  edict 
of  his  father,  offers  difficulties.  It  opens  with  the  phrase, 
Cesset  superstitio,2  and  then  proceeds  to  condemn  sac- 
rifices.    The  word  superstitio  is  puzzling  in  its  ambiguity. 

religion  pure.  Boissier,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  76,  thinks  it  difficult,  in  the 
face  of  the  sources,  to  doubt  the  passage  of  such  a  law.  He  be- 
lieves, however,  that  it  was  never  executed  and  that  Constantius 
forced  the  sense  in  his  reference,  for  it  probably  contained  vague 
threats,  rather  than  formal  prescriptions  against  sacrificing. 

1  Oratio  pro  templis,  p.  75.  "  But  having  prevailed  over  him  who 
at  that  time  gave  prosperity  to  the  cities,  judging  it  for  his  advantage 
to  have  another  deity,  for  the  building  of  the  city  which  he  then  de- 
signed, he  made  use  of  the  sacred  money,  but  made  no  alteration  in 
the  legal  worship.  The  temples  indeed  were  impoverished,  but  the 
rites  were  still  performed  there.  But  when  the  empire  came  to  his 
son  ....  (he)  was  led  into  many  wrong  actions,  and  among  others, 
to  forbid  sacrifices." 

2  C.  Th.  xvi-10-2.  "  Cesset  superstitio,  sacrifkiorum  aboleatur  in- 
sania.  Nam  quicumque  contra  legem  divi  principis  parentis  nostri  et 
hanc  nostrae  mansuetudinis  jussionem  ausus  fuerit  sacrificia  celebare, 
conpetens  in  eum  vindicta  et  praesens  sententia  exeratur." 


353]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  95 

It  had  been  used  commonly  by  the  Romans,  from  time  im- 
memorial, to  characterize  some  extravagant,  or  illegal  ex- 
pression of  a  religion  that  might,  in  its  sober,  accepted  form, 
command  the  devotion  of  the  nation.     It  was  the  usual 
word  employed  in  referring  to  improper   divinations  or 
magic.1     On    the    other  hand,  superstitio  was  a  favorite 
term  with  Christians,  who  applied  it  lavishly  in  referring 
to  any  form  of  paganism.    How  shall  we  determine  whether 
Constantius  was  using  the  term  with  its  common  pagan,  or 
with  its  Christian,  connotation?     To  arrive  at  a  positive 
conclusion  is  impossible.     It  is  equally  impossible,  in  view 
of  the  inadequate  sources,  to  affirm  that  Constantine  did 
or  did  not  pass  a  law  forbidding  all  sacrifices.    If  Constan- 
tius used  superstitio   in  this  law  with   the  pagan  conno- 
tation, he  probably  aimed  the  decree  at  the  sacrifices  con- 
nected with  divination  and  referred  to  similar  legislation 
of  his  father.     On  the  other  hand,  even  if  he  were  speak- 
ing of   all  paganism  as  superstitio   and  were   seeking  to 
abolish  every  kind  of  sacrifices,  there  is  no  evidence  in  this 
text,  that  the  Constantinian  legislation  to  wjiich  he  referred 
was  equally  comprehensive  in  its  intent.     In  prohibiting 
all  sacrifices,  Constantius  might  well  have  reminded  his  sub- 
jects that  there  were  already  on  the  statute  books  laws  of 
his  father  forbidding  certain  kinds  of  sacrifices.     It  is  in- 
teresting to  note  that  this  very  enactment  of  Constantius! 
stands  in  the  Code  next  to  one  of  Constantine's  laws  touch- 
ing divination.2 

1  When  in  58  the  Senate  proscribed  the  cult  of  Isis  it  referred  to  it 
as  "  turpis  superstitio."  V.  Tertullian  Apologia  6.  Cf.  Vol.  Max.  Epit., 
3,  4,  for  similar  use  of  the  term. 

2  C.  Th.,  xvi-10-i.  Chastel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  61  et  seq.,  has  an  interesting 
hypothesis  in  regard  to  this  law  of  Constantius.  He  sets  aside 
Libanius'  statement  in  reminding  us  that  that  author  was  only  twenty- 
three  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Constantine,  and  since  he 


96  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [354 

Constantine's  historians  credit  him  with  two  quite  dif- 
ferent lines  of  action  as  far  as  his  own  statue  was  con-* 
cerned.  For  on  some  occasions  he  is  reputed  to  have  for- 
bidden that  it  be  set  up  in  a  heathen  temple,  while  on  others 
he  is  charged  with  placing  it  in  a  temple,  in  order  to  dis- 
credit the  religious  character  of  the  building.1 

While  Constantine  was  welcoming  Christian  bishops  to 
his  court  and  showing  them  favor  and  respect,  he  had  pagan 
philosophers  among  his  friends.  Sopater,  whom  Eusebius 
called  the  most  eloquent  of  the  philosophers  after  the  death 
of  Iamblicus,  rose  rapidly  in  imperial  favor,  and  at  public 
audiences  occupied  the  seat  at  the  emperor's  left.2  The  em- 
peror's friendship  led  to  his  death,  for  people  became  jeal- 
ous of  his  eminent  position  and  his  friendship  with  the 

always  had  lived  at  Antioch  or  Athens,  he  could  scarcely  have  known 
what  passed  at  court  in  324.  Besides,  in  his  speech  before  Theodosius, 
it  was  a  great  object  to  prove  Constantine  a  protector  of  paganism. 
Chastel  calls  our  attention  to  the  occasion  when  Libanius  declared  that 
Constantine  "  was  the  first  to  light  the  spark  that  burst  into  a  flame 
under  Constantius."  V.  Orat.  Apolog.,  Chastel  believes  that  shortly 
after  his  defeat  ^JT  Licinius,  Constantine  published  a  law  prohibit- 
ing sacrifices.  Then,  while  the  Christians  were  exultantly  declaring 
that  paganism  was  abolished,  the  pagans,  by  seditous  riots,  were  mak- 
ing it  impossible  to  execute  the  law.  Chastel  does  not  believe  the 
law  was  formally  revoked,  but  that  it  was  suspended  or  modified  in 
some  way.     Cf.  Seeck,  Die  Gesch.  d.  Unterg.  d.  antik-Welt,  vol.  i,  p.  66. 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xvi.  "At  the  same  time  he  forbade  by  an  express 
enactment,  the  setting  up  of  any  resemblance  of  himself  in  any  idol 
temple,  that  not  even  the  lineaments  of  his  person  might  receive 
contamination  from  the  error  of  forbidden  superstition."  Soc,  bk.  i, 
ch.  viii,  says  the  emperor  "  set  up  his  own  statue  in  the  temples."  The 
popular  custom  of  setting  up  a  statue  of  the  reigning  emperor  in  a 
temple  dates  back  to  the  time  of  Augustus  and  is  an  evidence  of  the 
recognition  of  the  divine  side  of  the  principate.  The  emperor's  statue 
bore  such  inscriptions  as:  divi  filius,  deus  et  dominus  or  deus  natus, 
which  naturally  seemed  gravely  sacrilegious  to  Christians. 

*  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  253,  does  not  believe  that  Constantine 
gave  him  this  seat  of  honor. 


355]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  gy 

emperor.  When  the  corn  ships  were  delayed,  they  held 
Sopater  responsible  for  their  non-appearance,  and  charged 
him  with  having  chained  the  winds  that  should  have  borne 
the  boats  to  the  Roman  port.  The  people  seem  to  have 
played  on  the  Emperor's  credulity  and  Sopater  was  con- 
demned to  death.1 

Another  philosopher  who  enjoyed  high  favor  with  Con- 
stantine  was  Eustathius.2  For  the  most  part,  however,  ac- 
cording to  Eunapius,  the  philosophers  were  silenced,  and 
it  was  only  the  lofty  and  bold  spirit  of  Sopater  that  refused 
to  be  thus  bound."" 

The  statement  of  later  historians 4  that  Constantine 
closed  offices  in  the  state  and  army  to  pagans,  are  not 
borne  out  by  contemporary  sources.  On  the  occasion  of  his 
vicennial,  however,  in  326,  he  refused  to  conform  to  cus- 
tomary usage  and  take  part  in  the  pagan  ceremonies  of  the 
Capitoline  at  Rome ;  and,  according  to  Zosimus,  he  thereby 
incurred  the  hatred  of  the  senate  and  people.5  However, 
Zosimus  himself   relates  that  as   far  back  as  313,  sacred 

1  Eunap.,  Vita  Aedii,  p.  48,  holds  Ablabius,  pretorian  prefect,  directly 
responsible  for  Sopater's  death.  Ablabius,  a  man  of  humble  family, 
was  raised  by  Constantine  to  great  power.  If  it  were  the  same 
Ablabius,  and  there  is  every  appearance,  to  whom  Constantine  wrote 
in  314  anent  the  Council  of  Aries,  he  had  then  some  government  office 
in  Africa,  and  was  a  Christian.  His  religion  would  account  for  the 
way  in  which  Eunap.  and  Zos.  speak  of  him. 

*  Eunap.,  ibid.,  p.  56. 

'  Eunapius,  p.  43.  "  Perchance  then  his  chosen  group  of  disciples 
found  itself  forced  to  maintain  a  silence  full  of  mystery  and  to  pre- 
serve a  reserve  worthy  a  hierophant." 

4  Cf.  Cedrenus,  Historiarum  Compendium  in  Corpus  Historiae 
Bysantinae,  vol.  ii,  p.  272. 

5  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  p.  52.  "And  on  a  particular  festival,  when  the  army 
was  to  go  up  to  the  capitol,  he  very  indecently  reproached  the  solemn- 
ity, and  treading  the  holy  ceremonies,  as  it  were,  under  his  feet,  in- 
curred the  hatred  of  Senate  and  people." 


98  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [356 

games  were  omitted  at  Rome,  and  to  this  neglect  he  lays 
the  miserable  state  of  the  empire.1  By  his  own  avowal,2 
Constantine  was,  at  that  time,  conforming  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  state  religion.  Sextus  Aurelius  Victor,3  also, 
records  that  the  ceremonies  were  not  solemnized  in  313, 
and  considers  it  an  evidence  of  the  declining  interest  for 
the  city  of  Rome. 

In  336,  when  Constantine  celebrated  the  thirtieth  year 
of  his  reign,  all  the  pomp  of  pagan  ceremonies  was  con- 
spicuously absent,  and  in  its  stead  were  simple  pagan  rites.4 
Then  it  was  that  Eusebius  waxed  eloquent  over  the  decline 
of  paganism:  "  wars  were  no  more  for  the  gods  were  not; 
no  more  did  warfare  in  country  or  town,  no  more  did  ef- 
fusion of  human  blood  distress  mankind  as  heretofore, 
when  demon  worship  and  the  madness  of  idolatry  pre- 
vailed." 5  He  enumerates  the  great  things  Constantine  had 
done  for  Christianity  in  honoring  it  and  in  buildingi 
churches :  "  Hence  the  universal  change  for  the  better, 
which  leads  men  to  spurn  their  lifeless  idols,  to  trample 
under  foot  the  lawless  rites  of  their  demon  deities  and 

1  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  pp.  39-40. 

2  V.  supra,  p.  24. 

s  De  Caesaribus,  ch.  xxviii. 

4  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  viii ;  cf.  ch.  ix. 

5  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  ii  "  and  he  alone  of  all  who  have  wielded  the  im- 
perial power  of  Rome,  being  honored  by  the  Supreme  Sovereign,  with 
a  reign  of  three  decennial  periods,  now  celebrated  this  festival,  not 
as  his  ancestors  might  have  done,  in  honor  of  infernal  demons,  or  the 
apparitions  of  seducing  spirits,  or  of  the  fraud  or  deceitful  arts  of 
impious  men  .  .  .  He  does  not,  in  imitation  of  ancient  usage,  defile 
his  imperial  mansions  with  blood  and  gore,  nor  propitiate  the  infernal 
deities  with  fire  and  smoke  and  sacrificial  offerings;  but  dedicates  to 
the  universal  sovereign  a  pleasant  and  acceptable  sacrifice,  even  his 
own  imperial  soul  and  a  mind  truly  fitted  for  the  service  of  God  .  .  . 
this  sacrifice  our  emperor  has  learned,  with  purified  mind  and  thoughts 
to  present  as  an  offering  without  the  intervention  of  fire  and  blood." 


357]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  99 

laugh  to  scorn  the  time-honored  follies  of  their  fathers."  x 
Another  act  of  Constantine  had  an  anti-pagan  and  pro- 
Christian  color.  There  was  an  ancient  tradition  in  Egypt 
that  Serapis  caused  the  overflow  of  the  Nile;  and  conse- 
quently it  was  customary  to  bear  the  Nilometer  into  his 
temple  in  Alexandria.  Constantine  ordered  this  measure 
transferred  to  a  church.2 

During  Constantine's  reign,  the  pagan  priests  enjoyed 
their  old  position  and  privileges.  It  is  true  that  the  emperor 
dissolved  a  certain  priesthood  in  Alexandria  but  it  was 
notorious  for  its  effeminate  character  and  a  pagan  moralist 
might  have  given  the  same  order  for  its  dissolution. 
There  are  a  couple  of  interesting  laws  published  within 
two  years  of  Constantine's  death,  which  seem  to  confirm 
ancient  prerogatives  to  certain  African  priesthoods  and  offi- 
cials. The  first  of  these  issued  August,  335,  was  addressed 
to  Felix,  the  pretorian  prefect.3  The  occasion  for  it  was  a 
complaint  that  men  of  curial  rank,  after  being  honored  with 
the  position  of  flamen,  priest,  or  magistrate,  were  compelled 
to  fill  certain  onerous  offices  unsuitable  to  their  dignity. 
The  emperor  decreed  that  these  men  be  exempt  from  such 
obligation.  Again  in  May,  337,  addressing  the  Council  of 
the  Provinces  of  Africa,  Constantine  declared  that  the 
fiamens  and  even  decimvirs  should  be  immune  from  the  duty 
of  serving  as  superintendent  or  in  other  official  capacity. 
This  second  decree  he  ordered  cut  into  bronze  tablets  in 
order  that  it  might  be  perpetually  observed.4  While  we  cite 
these  laws  as  evidence  of  Constantine's  fairness  and  favor 
to  all  men,  we  must  not  forget  that  even  under  previous 

1  Eus.,  Orat.,  ch.  ix. 

*  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xviii  and  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii. 

3  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  21.     Vide  infra,  p.  165  for  text. 

4  C.  Th.  xii-5-2.     Vide  infra,  p.  165  for  text. 


IOo  TOLERATION  UNDER  C0NSTANT1NE  [358 

emperors,  Christians  had  been  holding,  not  only  the  office 
of  municipal  magistrate,  but  even  that  of  flamen  of  cities.1 
Since  324  all  public  offices  in  the  East  had  been  secularized, 
hence,  none  of  the  offices  mentioned  in  these  edicts,  except- 
ing that  of  priest,  may  be  considered  as  religious.  The 
edicts,  in  the  last  analysis,  seem  to  lack  marked  religious 
character  of  any  kind.  They  safeguard  prerogatives  of 
members  of  corporations  and  holders  of  certain  public 
offices,  but  are  not  primarily  concerned  with  ecclesiastics' 
as  such.2 

In  March,  1733,  there  was  discovered  at  Spello  (His- 
pellum)  in  Umbria,  an  inscription  that  was  published  in  the 
same  century.3  It  purported  to  be  a  rescript  of  Constantine. 
but  its  validity  was  questioned  by  scholars,  Muratori  among 
them,  because  of  orthographic  peculiarities  and  the  nature 
of  the  contents.  Mommsen,  however,  who  carefully 
studied  it  has  disposed  of  the  objections  raised  against  ac- 
cepting it  on  its  face  value.  According  to  Mommsen,  it  was 
drawn  up  between  326  and  337.  The  occasion  was  this : 
the  people  of  Tuscany  and  Umbria  held  a  common  annual 
assembly  at  Volsenii  (Bolsena),  with  accompanying  cir- 
cuses and  theatrical  entertainments.  On  account  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  traveling,  the  Umbrians  petitioned 
the  Emperor  to  be  allowed  to  hold  an  assembly  of  their  own 
with  games   at  Hispellum,   whose  second   name  was   Urbs 

1  Duchesne,  L'His.  anc.  de  I'Eglise,  vol.  ii,  p.  62.  A  Christian  could 
hold  the  position  without  doing  violence  to  his  conscience. 

2  Bury  in  appendix,  to  his  edition  of  Gibbon,  vol.  ii,  p.  566,  says  it 
has  been  pointed  out  that  sacerdotales  as  well  as  flamens,  "  had  ceased 
to  carry  on  the  ritual  and  simply  as  a  matter  of  equity,  had  the  old 
rights  secured  to  them,  while  they  no  longer  performed  the  old  duties." 

3  Found  in  Muratori,  Novus  thesaurus  veterum  inscriptionum,  vol, 
iii,  col.  1791  and  Orelli-Henzen,  vol.  iii,  col.  5580.  See  Mommsen  in 
Berichten  iiber  d.  Verhandlungen  d.  Kong.  Sachs.  Gesell.  d.  Wiss.,  1850, 
p.  199.     V.  infra,  pp.  167-8  for  text. 


359]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  IOI 

Flavia  Constans.  They  further  begged  to  be  permitted  to 
erect  a  temple  to  the  imperial  family.  The  Emperor  in  the 
rescript  under  consideration,  granted  both  petitions,  but 
stipulated  that  the  building  dedicated  to  his  honor  should 
not  be  polluted  by  the  contagious  frauds  of  superstition.1 

This  document  is,  unquestionably,  of  great  importance 
for  the  student  of  Constantine's  religious  policy.  It  pre- 
sents difficulties,  however,  which  make  it  hard  to  determine 
its  real  implications. 

Schultze  2  believes  that  we  have  ample  evidence  here  of 
Constantine's  Christian  spirit.  In  the  first  place,  he  points 
out  that  the  use  of  the  word  aedes  in  the  rescript,  in 
place  of  templum  which  occurred  in  the  petition,  is  sig- 
nificant. Aedes  may  be  used  as  a  synonym  for  tem- 
plum, but  again  it  may  indicate  a  purely  secular  building. 
Even  where  the  words  are  used  synonymously,  there  re- 
mains a  distinction  between  the  two  for  the  dedication 
ceremonies  of  the  two  edifices  differed.3  According  to 
Schultze,  the  Hispellum  building  was  to  be,  not  a  religious 
edifice,  but  a  fine  hall,  in  which  would  be  placed  the  por- 
traits of  the  Emperor  and  of  his  sons;  perhaps  the  rescript 
itself,  inscribed  on  marble  might  be  set  up  there  too.  If 
the  Emperor's  statue  were  in  the  building,  the  right  of  sanc- 
tuary that  was  connected  with  it  might  of  itself  give  a  cer- 

1  "  In  cujus  gremio  aedem  quoque  Flavie  hoc  est  nostrae  gentis  ut 
desideratis  magnifico  opere  perfici  volumnus,  ea  observatione  perscripta 
(praescripta)  ne  aedes  nostro  nomini  dedicata  cujusquam  contagiose 
(sic)   superstitionis  fraudibus  polluatur." 

2  "  Inschrift  von  Hispellum  "  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  362  et  seq. 

"  Non  omnes  aedes  sacras  templa  esse."  Varro  apud  Gellium, 
14-7,  quoted  by  Schultze. 

Technically  "  templum  "  was  a  locality  consecrated  by  an  augur  as 
fanum  was  a  place  consecrated  by  a  pontifex.  An  cedes  might  be  in- 
augurated for  state  business  or  consecrated  for  worship.  Some  cedes 
might  be  both  templa  and  fana  for  they  might  be  put  to  both  secular 
and  religious  uses. 


IG2  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [360 

tain  religious  character  to  the  whole  building.1  Further- 
more, Schultze  has  no  doubt  but  that  in  the  rescript,  Con- 
stantine  meant  to  forbid  any  pagan  ceremonies  from  being 
carried  on  in  the  hall.  As  elsewhere,2  this  author  contends) 
that  Constantine  referred  to  general  pagan  practices  in 
using  the  word  superstition 

Mommsen  quotes  another  rescript  of  Hispellum  which 
proves  that  even  if  Schultze  rightly  interprets  the  emper- 
or's instructions,  they  were  not  observed.  This  rescript 
refers  to  Coronato  Tuscia  et  Umbriae  pontifici  gentis 
Flaviae.* 

Now  for  our  own  part,  although  we  may  grant  that 
Schultze  is  correct  in  holding  that  it  was  intention,  not 
chance,  that  led  the  emperors  to  use  the  word  acdes  in- 
stead of  templum  in  answering  the  petition  of  the  Um- 
brians,  we  are  unable  to  agree  with  him  in  his  main  con- 
clusions. The  evidence  itself  seems  too  slight  to  warrant 
the  contention  that  the  word  was  not  used  as  a  synonym 

1  Mommsen  believes  with  Schultze  that  a  purely  religious  building 
was  not  meant.  V.  Mommsen-Marquardt,  Romische  staats-verwaltung, 
vol.  iii,  pp.  142  et  seq.,  also  259.    Cf.  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  178. 

2  V.  supra. 

3  "  Schon  seit  d.  J.  319,  (C.  Th.,  ix-16-1)  wird  in  Konstantinischen 
Gesetzten  der  Ausdruck  "  superstitio "  f iir  die  heidnische  Religion 
und  ihre  Lebensaiisserungen  gebraucht.  Die  einzige  Superstition  zu 
welchem  das  in  Frage  stehende  Gebaude  Veranlassung  geben  konnte 
war  der  Kultus  in  der  iiblichen  Form,  in  welcher  er  sich  schon  seit 
langerer  Zeit  fixert  hatte.  In  dieser  Hinsicht  sind  die  Worte  sehr 
verstandlich ;  sie  gestatten  gar  keine  andere  Beziehung  und  Deutung." 
Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  vii,  p.  364.  Marquardt,  however  believes  a  temple 
was  erected  and  that  priests  were  attached  to  it.  Culte  ches  les  Rom., 
p.  140,  note  1. 

*  Mommsen  thinks  this  was  probably  Coronatus  Antoninus  a  priest 
after  Constantine's  death.  He  believes  the  title  pontifex  was  chosen 
instead  of  the  more  natural  one  of  flamen  or  sacerdos  in  order  not 
to  offend  the  emperor. 


361]  LEGISLATION  AFFECTING  PAGANISM  103 

for  templum. 1  Furthermore,  we  believe  that  here  as  in 
his  interpretation  of  the  Constantinian  legislation  on  divi- 
nation, Schultze  is  at  fault  in  neglecting  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  common  pagan  use  of  the  term  super sti- 
tio.  Our  own  opinion,  strengthened  by  the  references  in 
the  second  rescript  of  Hispellum  is,  that  Constantine  did 
not  prohibit  pagan  worship  in  this  edifice  at  Hispellum,  but 
simply  commanded  that  none  of  the  superstitions  of  pagan- 
ism, divination  and  magic,  be  indulged  in  there. 

1  Jordan,  in  Harmes,  vol.  xiv,  1879,  pp.  567,  568  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Augustus  calls  only  two  buildings  in  Rome,  templum;  other 
buildings  set  apart  for  the  gods  he  designates  as  cedes.  Jordan  thinks 
the  building  for  the  gods  erected  on  private  soil  was  a  templum,  that 
on  public  ground  an  cedes. 


CHAPTER  V 
Paganism  in  Constantinople 

The  next  problem  in  Constantine's  pagan  policy  is  to 
learn,  if  possible,  how  he  treated  pagan  cults  in  his  new  cap- 
ital, Constantinople.  This  New  Rome  became  the  imperial 
residence  in  330,1  so  that  in  examining  Constantine's  pagan 
policy  in  his  new  city  we  are  concerned  with  acts  which  fell 
within  the  last  seven  years  of  his  life. 

The  motives  for  founding  the  new  capital  on  the  Bos- 
phorous  were  largely  political.  Rome  had  long  ceased  to 
be  the  political  centre  of  the  Roman  world.  Logically, 
when  the  emperors  absorbed  the  powers  formerly  wielded 
by  the  S.  P.  Q.  R.,  the  centre  of  government  was  no  longer 
Rome,  but  any  place  favored,  at  the  moment,  by  the  mon- 
arch. After  the  territorial  expansion  of  the  state,  Rome's 
position  became  less  geographically  central  and  the  rulers 
spent  less  time  there  than  in  their  camps  or  in  provincial 
cities,  whence  they  could  more  easily  advance  against  the 
enemy.  As  the  East  grew  in  importance,  on  account  of  the 
activities  there  and  the  pressing  anxiety  concerning  the  ag- 
gressions of  the  Persians,  it  was  not  surprising  that  Dio- 
cletian made  Nicomedia  the  chief  imperial  residence  by  tak- 

1  Work  seems  to  have  been  begun  by  329  if  not  before.  Seeck,  Die 
Zeitfolge  der  Gesetze  Constantins  in  Zeitschrift  der  Savigny-Stiftung 
fiir  Rechtsgeschichte  1889,  vol.  x,  p.  197,  believes  we  cannot  be  sure 
of  the  date  of  the  founding  since  authorities  differ.  Hesychius,  II- 
histrii  Origines  Constantinopolitanae,  p.  18,  says  that  Constantine  "  cele- 
brated the  day  of  dedication  upon  the  nth  of  the  month  of  May  in 
the  25th  year  of  his  reign." 

104  [362 


363]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  IO~ 

ing  up  his  abode  there.  It  was  natural  then,  that  Constantine, 
after  becoming  sole  ruler  of  the  Roman  world,  should  feel 
the  value  of  a  capital  further  East  than  Rome. 

Some  personal  lack  of  sympathy  with  Rome  in  326  may 
have  been  a  contributing  motive  in  founding  a  new  Rome. 
Zosimus  would  have  us  believe  that  in  that  year  the  Roman 
senators  and  people  were  deeply  angered  at  Constantine'' s 
refusal  to  participate  in  the  Capitoline  festivities  : 

Being  unable  to  endure  the  curses  of  almost  the  whole  city* 
he  sought  for  another  city  as  large  as  Rome  where  he  might 
build  himself  a  palace.  Having,  therefore,  discovered  a  con- 
venient site  between  Troas  and  old  Ilium,  he  there  accord- 
ingly laid  a  foundation  and  built  part  of  a  wall  to  a  consid- 
erable height  which  may  still  be  seen  by  any  that  sail  towards 
the  Hellespont.  Afterwards  changing  his  purpose,  he  left 
his  work  unfinished,  and'  went  to  Byzantium,  where  he  ad- 
mired the  situation  of  the  place  and  therefore  resolved,  when 
he  had  considerably  enlarged  it,  to  make  it  a  residence  worthy 
of  an  emperor.1 

Constantine's  final  choice  of  the  old  commercial  port  of 
Byzantium  was  a  most  happy  one,  and  it  has  been  said  that 
by  that  single  act  he  would  have  proved  his  political  genius. 
Important  as  it  was,  however,  for  the  political  history  of 
the  later  Empire,  any  mention  of  it  would  have  no  place  in 
this  study,  if  it  had  not  been  claimed,  that  in  connection  with 

1  Zosimus,  bk.  ii,  p.  52.  For  another  account  of  how  Constantine 
thought  first  of  founding  his  city  near  the  site  of  old  Troy,  cf. 
Sozomen,  bk,  ii,  ch.  iii.  There  seems  to  have  been  the  tradition  of 
an  oracle  that  foretold  that  the  rule  of  Rome  should  be  transferred 
to  the  place  of  its  origin,  and  according  to  legend,  Ilion,  was  the  an- 
cient sacred  home  of  the  Romans.  Cf.  Codinus,  De  originibus  Con- 
stantinopolitanis,  p.  7,  where  he  says,  "  When  old  Rome  had  already 
begun  to  decline,  Constantine,  the  son  of  the  Emperor  Constantius, 
invested  with  the  government,  founded  this  new  and  beautiful  city,  dis- 
tinguished by  the  name  of  Constantine." 


I06  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [364 

the  founding  of  New  Rome  the  Emperor  displayed  his  real 
feelings  toward  paganism.  Just  what  the  attitude  was  stu- 
dents are  not  agreed.  Historians,  both  primary  and  sec- 
ondary, in  describing  the  emperor's  policy  towards  pagan- 
ism in  Constantinople  are  divided  into  two  camps :  one  de- 
claring he  forbade  all  pagan  practices,  the  other  that  he 
built  temples,  and  did  not  interfere  with  pagan  cults. 

The  belief  grew  up  and  continued  to  be  held,  that  Con- 
stantine  in  creating  New  Rome,  utterly  discountenanced 
idolatry  there ;  that,  in  fact,  there  were  no  temples  nor  altars 
to  be  found  in  the  city.  Eusebius  says  that  Constantino 
"  determined  to  purge  the  city  from  idolatry  of  every  kind 
that  henceforth  no  statues  might  be  worshiped  there  in 
the  temples  of  those  falsely  reputed  to  be  gods;  nor  any 
altars  denied  by  the  pollution  of  blood;  that  there  might 
be  no  sacrifices  consumed  by  fire,  no  demon  festivals  nor 
any  of  the  other  ceremonies  usually  observed  by  the  super- 
stitious." 1  On  the  other  hand,  Zosimus  says  plainly  that  in 
the  forum  Constantine  erected  two  temples, 

in  one  of  which  was  placed  the  statue  of  Rhea,  the  Mother  of 
the  gods,  whom  Jason's  companions  had  formerly  fixed  on 
Mt.  Dindymous,  which  is  near  the  city  of  Cyzicus.  It  is  said 
that  through  his  contempt  of  religion  he  impaired  this  statue 
by  taking  away  the  lions  that  were  on  each  side,  and  changing 
the  position  of  the  hands.  For  it  formerly  rested  each  hand 
on  a  lion,  but  was  now  altered  into  a  supplicating  posture 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  xlviii ;  cf.  Soz.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  iii.  "As  the  city  became 
the  capital  of  the  empire  during  a  period  of  religious  prosperity,  it  was 
not  polluted  by  altars,  Grecian  temples  nor  sacrifices."  Also  Orosius, 
bk.  vii,  p.  272  "  urbem  nominis  sui  Romanorum  regum  vel  primus  vel 
solus  instituit;  quae  sola  expers  idolorum  ad  hoc  brevissimo  tempore 
condita  a  Christiano  imperatore  provecta  est,  ut  sola  Romae  tot 
saeculis  miseriis  que  provectae,  forma  et  potentia  merito  possit  aequari." 
Cf.  Tillemont,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  235-6.  S.  Hieronymi,  Chronicorum, 
bk.  ii,  col.  497,  Anno  335.  "  Edicto  Constantini  gentilium  templa  sub- 
versa  sunt." 


365]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  IOy 

looking  towards  the  city  and  seeming  to  observe  what  the  peo- 
ple were  doing.  In  the  other  temple  he  placed  the  statue  of 
the  "  Fortune  of  Rome  "-1 

In  addition,  the  same  historian  states  that  Constantine,  in 
enlarging  the  hippodrome  took  into  it  the  "temple  of  Castor 
and  Pollux  whose  statues  are  still  standing  in  the  portico 
of  the  hippodrome  ".2 

Some  of  the  Byzantine  historians  state  that  Constan- 
tine erected  temples  and  sacred  buildings  in  the  new  city; 
but,  evidently,  except  where  these  are  specifically  stated  to 
be  pagan  edifices,  Christian  churches  are  meant.3 

Malalas,  however,  says  that  after  despoiling  three  pagan 

1  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  pp.  52-53.  2  Ibid. 

8  Codinus,  or  according  to  Preger,  an  anonymous  author,  who  goes 
by  this  name,  wrote  in  the  tenth  century,  using  besides  other  sources 
now  lost,  Hesychius  and  two  anonymous  authors.  He  is  an  im- 
portant author  for  Byzantine  history,  largely  because  there  is  little 
first-rate  material  on  the  subject,  and  because  he  is  so  superior  to  such 
chroniclers  as  Malalas  and  Cedrenus.  The  best  critical  text  is  that 
of  Preger  found  in  volume  ii  of  Scriptores  originum  Constantino  poli- 
tanorum,  1907.  Codinus  in  describing  Constantine's  founding  of 
Constantinople  says  that:  "Afterwards  he  built  baths  and  sacred 
buildings  (  kpovg  oinovg')"  p.  7,  par.  A  in  Corpus  Historiae  Byzan- 
tinae;  p.  138  in  Preger.  Later  on  he  says:  "  First  he  built  two  sacred 
buildings  ( lepovc  olnovg ) ,  one  to  St.  Irene,  the  other  to  the  Holy 
Apostles;  then  he  abolished  all  the  superstitions  of  the  Greeks.  Next 
he  erected  many  temples  vaoif  of  which  we  shall  speak  shortly," 
in  C.  B.  H.,  p.  8,  par.  A  and  B ;  in  Preger,  p.  139. 

Zonaras  who  compiled  a  World  Chronicle  about  11 18,  which 
ranks  high  among  Byzantine  chronicles  probably  used  vaol  with  the 
same  connotation  when  he  says  "And  such  was  formerly  the  city  of 
Byzantium:  but  the  distinguished  Constantine  greatly  enlarged  it  and 
built  temples  which  he  lavishly  adorned.  V.  Annates,  vol.  ii,  ch.  xiii, 
p.  7,  par.  D.  In  the  preceding  chapter  he  tells  us  how  the  Emperor 
dedicated  the  city  to  the  Mother  of  God. 

Cedrenus  writing  his  Historiarum  Compendium  at  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  or  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  in  speaking  of  St. 
Sophia  calls  it  a  temple  (vaoq)  but  elsewhere  refers  to  churches  as 
{kKK?.r,aiaq)   v.  p.  284. 


IOS  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [366 

temples  the  Emperor  ordered  that  they  be  allowed  to  re- 
main.1 

One  chronicler  reports  that  the  Emperor  placed  the  city 
under  the  protection  of  the  Tyche  of  Rome  and  that  to  her 
especial  honor  was  paid.2  Eusebius,  on  the  other  hand* 
says  the  Emperor,  in  building  churches  in  Constantinople, 
consecrated  the  city  to  God  and  the  martyrs.3 

Pagans  and  Christians  alike  testify  that  Constantinople 
was  full  of  statues  of  gods  and  goddesses  collected  from  all 
parts  of  the  empire.'4  Codinus  reports  that  even  the  church 
of  St.  Sophia  was  ornamented  with  pagan  statues.5 

1  Malalas,  probably  a  contemporary  of  Justinian,  compiled  a  Chronicle 
of  the  World  that  shows  the  author  to  have  been  strongly  anti-pagan. 
For  that  reason  it  is  doubly  interesting  to  find  him  reporting  "At 
the  same  time  the  Emperor  Constantine  ordered  that  those  three 
temples  (v&os"),  namely  of  the  Sun,  Diana  the  Moon  and  Aphrodite, 
which  were  situated  in  that  place  which  used  to  be  called  the  Acropolis, 
and  which  had  been  stripped  of  their  possessions,  should,  from  that 
time  forward,  remain  standing."     Vide,  bk.  xiii,  p.  5. 

*  For  an  account  of  Tyche  v.  Pauly's  Real-Encyklopaedie  der  Klas- 
sischen  Altertumswisscnschaft,  vol.  vii,  Art.  Fortuna.  In  the  empire, 
this  goddess  became  associated  with  the  imperial  house  and  therefore, 
received,  as  did  many  other  deities,  the  additional  name  of  Augusta: 
Banduri,  Imperium  Orientate  sive  Antiquitatcs  Constantino politanae, 
ch.  xiii,  says  that  Constantine  placed  a  cross  on  the  head  of  Tyche. 

3  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  xlviii.  Zonaras,  v.  vol.  ii,  bk.  xiii,  p.  6,  and 
chroniclers  after  him,  declare  that  Constantine  dedicated  his  new  capi- 
tal to  the  Virgin.  In  later  centuries  she  was  regarded  as  the  patron 
and  protector  of  the  city. 

4  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  pp.  52  ct  seq.    Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  ch.  liv. 

"From  others  (i.  e.  temples)  again,  the  venerable  statues  of  brass, 
of  which  the  superstition  of  antiquity  boasted  for  a  long  series  of 
years,  were  exposed  to  view  in  all  the  public  places  of  the  imperial 
city:  so  that  here  a  Pythian  and  there  a  Sminthian  Apollo  excited 
the  contempt  of  the  beholder;  while  the  Delphic  tripods  were  deposited 
in  the  hippodrome  and  the  Muses  of  Helicon  in  the  palace  itself.  In 
short,  the  city  which  bore  his  name  was  everywhere  filled  with  brazen 
statues  of  the  most  exquisite  workmanship  which  had  been  dedicated 
to  every  province  and  which  the  deluded  victims  of  superstition  had 


-,67]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  i0g 

In  the  Hippodrome  was  set  up  the  Delphic  tripod,  long 
the  visible  symbol  of  Greek  independence,  and  an  instru- 
ment for  communicating  with  divinity.1  In  the  forum  Con- 
long  vainly  honored  as  gods  with  numberless  victims  and  burnt  sacri- 
fices, though  now,  at  length,  they  learnt  to  renounce  their  error, 
when  the  emperor  held  up  the  very  objects  of  their  worship  to  be 
the  ridicule  and  sport  of  all  beholders." 

S.   Hieronymi,    Chronicorum,   bk.   ii,   col.   498,    (Anno   334)    "  Ditatur 
Constantinopolis  pene  omnium  urbium  nuditate  ante  Byzantium  dicta." 

Also  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xvi.  "  He  also  destroyed  the  superstition  of 
the  heathen  for  he  brought  forth  their  images  into  public  view  to  orna- 
ment the  city  of  Constantinople  and  set  up  the  Delphic  tripods  pub- 
licly in  the  Hippodrome." 

Hesychius  of  Miletus,  also  called  the  Illustrious,  wrote  in  the  middle 
of  the  sixth  century  a  History  of  the  World.  Part  of  the  sixth  book 
has  survived  the  early  destruction  of  the  rest  and  preserves  the  au- 
thor's account  of  Byzantium  from  the  earliest  days  to  the  time  of 
Constantine.  The  best  text  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  T.  Preger's 
Scriptores  Origines  Constantino politanoruin.  Preger  points  out  thac 
a  great  value  of  Hesychius  is  that  he  himself  saw  the  buildings  he 
describes.  Hesychius  has  sometimes  been  thought  to  have  been  a 
pagan  but  Krumbacher  considers  him  to  have  been  a  Christian. 
Hesychius.  p.  17  states,  'At  this  time  he  built  the  buildings  of  the 
Council  and  called  it  the  Senate,  in  which  he  set  up  also  a  statue 
of  the  Dodonian  Zeus  and  rebuilt  two  shrines  of  Pallas."  Cf.  Codinus, 
C.  IT.  B.,  p.  7. 

5  Codinus,  C.  H.  B.,  p.  9,  "He  erected  for  the  embellishment  of  the  city, 
all  the  bronze  statues  and  images  which  he  had  collected  from  the 
various  places  and  cities."  V.  p.  8,  par.  B  for  the  account  of  the  pagan 
statuary  decorating  St.  Sophia's  and  pp.  13  et  seq.  for  the  list  of  pagan 
images  to  be  found  in  Constantinople.  Cf.  Band.,  pp.  4  and  14.  Also 
Malalas,  bk.  xiii,  p.  4. 

The  horses  attributed  to  Lysippus,  which  Napoleon  was  to  trans- 
port from  the  Duomo  of  Venice  to  Paris,  were  taken  by  Constantine 
from  Corinth  and  set  up  in  the  hippodrome  of  the  new  city.  To- 
day they  once  more  paw  the  air  from  the  Duomo  of  Venice. 

1  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  p.  52.  "He  placed  on  one  side  of  it  (the  temple  of 
Caster  and  Pollux)  the  tripod  that  belonged  to  the  Delphian  Apollo, 
on  which  stood  an  image  of  the  deity."  Cf.  Soc,  bk.  i,  ch.  xvi.  The 
Delphic  tripod  was  a  cherished  possession  of  Greece  for  it  had  been 
set  up  after  the  victory  over  the  Persians  at  Plataea.  It  had  been 
made  from  a  tenth  part  of  the  spoils  taken  from  the  Persian   army 


IIO  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANT1NE  [368 

stantine  erected,  at  much  labor  and  cost,  the  porphyry  col-< 
umn  which  came  from  Egypt,  via  Rome,  and  on  its  pinnacle 
was  placed  the  statue  of  Apollo  which  was  renamed  for 
the  Emperor.  On  its  head,  acording  to  later  chroniclers, 
was  set  a  crown  constructed  of  nails  from  the  "  true  cross  "• 
inscribed  to  Constantine  who  shines  like  the  sun.1 

It  was  believed  by  the  fifth  century,  if  not  earlier,  that 
a  piece  of  the  "  true  cross  "  was  placed  under  the  column.21 
And  the  chroniclers  tell  us  how  Constantine  was  believed 
to  have  brought  the  palladium  secretly  from  Rome  and  to 

at  Plataea.  It  consisted  of  a  golden  basin,  supported  by  a  bronze 
serpent  with  three  heads  (or  three  serpents  intertwined)  with  a  list 
of  the  states  which  had  taken  part  in  the  war,  inscribed  on  the  coils 
of  the  serpent.  The  golden  bowl  was  carried  off  by  the  Phocians  in 
the  sacred  wars.  The  stand  is  still  in  the  Atmeidan  (hippodrome) 
but  in  damaged  condition  for  the  heads  of  .the  serpent  have  disap- 
peared, and  the  golden  bowl  with  which  Constantine  replaced  that 
appropriated  by  the  Phocians,  has  been  lost. 

1  Hesychius  says  that  in  the  forum  was  the  "  porphyry  column  on 
which  we  see  Constantine  seated  shining  justice  of  the  sun  on  the 
citizens."     V.  p.  17. 

Cf.  Malalas,  bk.  xiii,  pp.  4-5,  "Also  the  spacious  and  handsome  forum, 
in  the  center  of  which  he  set  up  his  wonderful  column  of  porphyry: 
upon  it  he  placed  his  own  statue  whose  head  was  crowned  with  seven 
points;  this  bronze  statue  the  Emperor  brought  from  the  city  of 
Phrygia  in  Ilium  where  it  had  formerly  stood."  Also  Zonaras,  vol. 
ii,  bk.  xiii,  pp.  7-8.  "  The  same,  they  say  is  a  statue  of  Apollo.  But 
that  divine  Emperor  brought  it  from  Phrygia  in  Ilium,  gave  his  own 
name  to  it,  after  setting  up  on  the  head  some  of  the  nails  that  had 
fixed  the  body  of  our  Lord  to  the  saving  Cross.  And  to  our  own  times 
this  column  remained  standing  unbroken  but  under  Alexius  Comnenus 
a  heavy  wind  dislodged  it  and  it  fell." 

Cf.  Codinus,  p.  7 ;  also  Band.,  p.  14. 

1  Helena,  Socrates  says,  after  finding  the  cross,  left  part  enclosed  in 
a  silver  case  in  the  church  of  the  New  Jerusalem  at  Jerusalem.  "  The 
other  part  she  sent  to  the  Emperor,  who  being  persuaded  that  the  city 
would  be  perfectly  secure  where  that  relic  should  be  preserved,  pri- 
vately enclosed  it  in  his  own  statue,  which  stands  on  a  large  column  of 
porphyry  in  the  forum  called  Constantine's  at  Constantinople.  I  have 
written  this  from  report  indeed;  but  almost  all  the  inhabitants  of  Con- 
stantinople affirm  that  it  is  true."     Vide,  bk.  i,  ch.  vii. 


36q]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  m 

have  concealed  it  also  under  the  porphyry  shaft.1  An 
anonymous  chronicler  of  the  eleventh  century  is  somewhat 
sceptical  as  to  whether  the  palladium  were  really  brought 
from  Rome  but  has  no  doubt  but  that  there  were 

placed  in  the  foundations  and  approaches  to  this  pillar  precious 
woods  and  relics  of  saints,  and  the  baskets  which  bore  the 
blessed  bread  and  the  crosses  of  the  two  thieves,  and  the  ala- 
baster box  of  sacred  ointment  for  surety  and  safety.  And  if 
the  Senate  persuaded  him  at  that  time  to  convey  from  Rome 
the  Palladium  also,  well-known  symbol  of  good  fortune,  as 
some  say  they  did  persuade  him,  and  to  place  it  among  the 
foundations  of  the  pillar,  that  was  the  deed  of  those  men 
(*.  e.,  the  Senators)  excited  over  the  superstitious  legends  of 
good  luck.2 

Certainly  Christians  held  this  column  and  what  it  contained 
in  great  reverence,  and  horsemen  dismounted  to  pass  it 
respectfully  on  foot.3 

Constantine  gave  to  his  new  capital,  at  the  command  of 
the  deity  an  "  everlasting  name  ".4    Just  what  this  was  we 

1  Malalas,  bk.  iii,  pp.  4-5.  "  There  also  Constantine  placed  beneath 
the  column  of  his  statue  in  the  forum  built  by  himself  the  Palladium, 
as  it  is  called  which  he  had  brought  secretly  from  Rome;  as  some 
Byzantines  affirm,  he  concealed  it  there." 

Cf.  Chronicon  Paschale  in  C.  B.  H.,  p.  284.  "  Idem  Imperator  Con- 
stantinus,  clam  ablatum  Roma  Palladium,  uti  appellatur,  in  Foro  a  se 
extructo,  sub  columna,  cui  imposita  est  illius  statua,  recondit;  ut  qui- 
dam  ex  Byzantiis  asserunt,  qui  et  ex  traditione  acceperunt,  Fortunam 
vero  urbis  ab  eo  instauratae,  incruento  facto  sacrifkio,  Florentem  ap- 
pellavit." 

Cf.  Band.,  p.  14;  also  Zonaras,  vol.  ii,  ch.  xiii,  par.  8. 

2  This  is  an  interpolation  in  Hesychius  which  is  found  almost  com- 
plete in  an  nth  century  manuscript  of  Anonymous  Vita  Constantini 
published  by  Preger,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  17,  note,  following  the  original 
statement  that  the  statue  of  Constantine  was  set  up  on  the  porphyry 
column. 

3  Philostorg.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xvii.    Cf.  Theod.,  bk.  i,  ch.  xxxiv. 

4  C.  Th.,  xiii,  5-7,  Dec.  1,  334,  "  Pro  commoditate  urbis,  quam  aeterno 
nomine,  jubente  deo,  donavimus." 


II2  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [370 

cannot  be  sure  but  it  seems  to  have  been  Anthusa,  the  old 
priestly  name  for  Rome,  meaning  flowering.1 

According  to  Johannes  Lydus,  "  Praetextatus  the  ponti- 
fex  maximus  .  .  .  took  part  with  Sopater  the  initiator  and 
Constantine  the  Emperor  in  building  the  city."  2  This  is 
the  passage  which  is  commonly  quoted  as  the  one  refer- 
ence we  possess  to  pagan  rites  of  consecration  at  the 
formal  dedication  of  New  Rome,  and  from  it  some  histor- 
ians draw  the  conclusion  that  Sopater  at  the  consecration 
ceremonies,  performed  magical  rites  to  protect  the  city  from 
evil,  and  that  Praetextatus  the  heirophant,  or  Roman  pon- 
tiff, was  also  present  on  the  same  occasion.3 

The  problems  that  open  up  to  the  student  of  Constan- 
tine's  policy  towards  paganism,  when  he  looks  into  the  story 
of  the  founding  of  Constantinople,  are  out  of  all  propor- 
tion to  the  meagre,  and  sometimes  contradictory,  sources 
from  which  he  attempts  to  solve  them.  Shall  we  conclude 
from  the  foregoing  recital  of  actions,  that  at  Constantinople 
the  Emperor  abandoned  the  program  of  toleration  that  he 
had  maintained  even  in  the  East  where  he  had  displayed 
a  more  radical  temper  in  religious  affairs  than  in  the  West? 
In  the  very  founding  of  Constantinople,  was  the  Emperor 
partly  animated  by  one  of  the  motives  that  influenced  Peter 
the  Great  in  creating  Petersburg — a  desire  to  have  a  cap- 

1  Malalas,  ch.  xiii,  p.  5.  "  But  the  Emperor  had  made  another  golden 
statue,  the  Tyche  of  the  city,  which  he  called  Anthusa."  [This  seems 
to  have  been  the  statue  that  was  borne  into  the  circus  upon  certain 
anniversaries.]  "  But  making  a  bloodless  sacrifice  to  God,  he  wished 
the  Fortune  of  the  City  founded  by  himself  and  called  by  his  name, 
to  be  called  Anthusa."  Cf.  Johannes  Lydus,  De  Mensibus,  excerpt  iv, 
par.  2.  "  Both  Rome  and  Constantinople  were  called  Flora,  that  is 
Anthusa  (or  flowering)."     Cf.  supra,  p.  in,  note  1. 

2  De  Mensibus,  excerpt  iv,  par.  2. 

3  Vide,  Schiller's  definite  statement  that  there  were  pagan  ceremonies 
used  at  the  consecration,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  215. 


371  ]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  113 

ital  where  he  could  be  free  from  the  religious  fetters  that 
constrained  him  in  the  ancient  political  and  religious  center 
of  the  state?  Certainly,  Constantine  like  Peter,  was  freer  in 
his  new  capital  than  in  the  old  stronghold  of  tradition;  but 
it  seems  unlikely  that  Constantine  should  depart  from  his 
old  religious  policy,  or  feel  it  wise  to  disregard  the  senti- 
ments of  the  many  pagans  in  New  Rome.  Unlike  Peters- 
burg, Constantinople  was  not  a  city  called  into  being  at  the 
command  of  the  ruler  from  whom  it  took  its  name.  In 
"  founding  "  his  new  capital,  Constantine  was  actually  only 
enlarging,  embellishing  and  re-christening  an  old  commer- 
cial city  whose  life  stretched  back  some  centuries  into  the 
past.  New  Rome,  then  was  made  up  of  an  ancient  town 
to  which  had  been  added  new  districts.  The  new  capital 
was  planned  to  meet  the  multifarious  needs  of  an  imperial 
residence  and  political  center  of  the  empire.  After  building 
a  "palace  little  inferior  to  that  of  Rome",  and  embellishing 
and  enlarging  both  hippodrome  and  forum,  Constantine 
"  built  convenient  dwellings  for  the  senators  who  followed 
him  from  Rome."  l  How  can  we  believe  that  these  promi- 
nent citizens  were  less  free  in  Constantinople  than  in  Rome, 
to  observe  the  rites  of  their  private  religion? 

As  far  as  the  rites  of  consecration  are  concerned,  it  is 
more  reasonable  to  believe  that  they  were  more  pagan  than 
Christian  in  character.  Those  who  believe  the  contrary, 
have  thought  it  significant  that  Zosimus,  who  showed  inter- 
est in  the  founding  of  the  city,  made  no  reference  to  any 
rites  of  consecration  and  they  conclude  that  he  knew  of 
none.2    It  is  true  that  both  Zosimus  and  Eusebius  are  silent 

1  Zos.,  bk.  ii,  p.  52-3.  Codinus,  p.  10,  tells  how  the  Emperor  had 
copies  of  the  Roman  senator's  houses  ready  as  surprises  for  them 
when  they  arrived  at  Constantinople. 

-  Schultze's  Geschichte  d.  Unterg.  des  griech-rom  Heidentums,  p.  54. 


II4  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [372 

concerning  any  dedication  of  New  Rome.  If  Christian 
ceremonies  had  been  used,  we  should  expect  a  mention,  if 
not  an  account  of  them,  from  the  pen  of  the  Bishop  of 
Caesarea,  who  would  have  been  only  too  eager  to  point  to 
another  evidence  of  his  hero's  Christian  heart;  while  at  the 
same  time  we  should  look  for  a  bitter  reference  to  them 
from  Zosimus,  who  would  have  seen  in  the  affair  another 
evidence  for  Constantine's  responsibility  in  bringing  about 
the  decline  of  the  Empire's  prosperity.1  On  the  other  hand, 
if  ordinary  pagan  forms  of  dedication  were  observed,  there 
would  be  no  point  in  Zosimus  referring  to  them,  and  Euse- 
bius  would  be  as  tactful  in  maintaining  silence  here,  as  he 
was  in  the  sad  business  of  the  deaths  of  Fausta  and  Cris- 
pus.  Furthermore,  two  conspicuous  pagans  who  performed 
religious  functions,  Sopater  and  Praetextatus,  are  reported 
to  have  been  closely  associated  with  Constantine  in  found- 
ing his  new  city.  It  has  also  been  reported,2  that  a  famous 
astrologer  cast  the  city's  horoscope. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  dispose  of  the  matter  of  temples 
and  pagan  worship  in  Constantinople  than  of  the  story  of 
the  inauguration  ceremonies.  Schultze,  in  one  of  his  most 
careful  monographs  on  Constantine's  history,  has  threshed 
out  the  question  of  temples  in  Constantinople.3  Although 
now  and  again  his  conclusions  are  vitiated,  as  in  his  other 
studies,  by  his  enthusiastic  determination  to  prove  Constan- 
tine strongly  pro-Christian  and  anti-pagan,  the  article 
commands  thoughtful  consideration. 

Schultze  believes  that  the  two  temples  which  Zosimus 
reports  that  Constantine  built  in  the  forum,  had  a  much 

1  Cf.  his  statement  in  regard  to  the  evils  resulting  from  omitting  the 
Capitoline  observances,  op.  cit.,  bk.  ii,  p.  52. 

2  Banduri,  vol.  i,  p.  3. 

1  Tempelbauten  in  Konstantinopel  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  352  et  seq. 


373]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  115 

earlier  origin  x  and  that  instead  of  building  them  the  Em- 
peror only  altered  or  beautified  them!  To  support  his 
notion  of  the  impossibility  of  crediting  Constantine  with 
building  temples  he  cites  C.  Th.  xv,  1-3,  326  (362),  Jun. 
29.  Idem  A.  Secundo  P (raefecto)  P(raetori)o.  Provin- 
ciarum  judices  commoneri  praecipimus,  ut  nihil  se  novi 
operis  ordinare  ante  debere  cognoscant,  quatn  ea  conple- 
verint,  quae  decessoribus  inchoata  sunt,  exceptis  dum- 
taxat  templorum  aediUcationibus.  This  he  interprets  as 
forbidding  the  restoration  of  decaying  temples! 2  Certainly 
this  law  could,  with  equal  propriety,  be  quoted  in  proof  of 
the  great  activity  in  temple-building  at  this  time.  In  point 
of  fact,  its  meaning  in  regard  to  temples  is  too  uncertain  to 
warrant  its  use  to  prove  any  point  concerning  temples  ex- 
cept, that  they  were  the  one  class  of  buildings  excepted 
from  the  law  requiring  magistrates  to  complete  buildings 
begun  by  their  predecessors,  before  beginning  new  struc- 
tures. Furthermore,  Schultze  points  out  that  just  a  short 
while  before,  in  his  letter  to  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine, 
(V.  C.j  bk.  ii,  chs.  xxiv-xliii)  the  Emperor  urged  his  sub- 
jects to  exchange  Christianity  for  paganism.  Schultze  is 
certain  that  the  building,  in  which  the  Tyche  was  set  up, 
had  neither  priests  nor  sacrifices  connected  with  it.  In  fact, 
he  is  convinced  that  the  worship  of  Tyche  in  Constanti- 
nople had  such  blended  Christian-pagan  elements,  that  it  is 
to  be  compared  with  the  common  use  of  amulets  which  rep- 
resented a  mixture  of  pagan  and  Christian  superstitions. 
The  commemorative  coins  that  were  struck  at  the  founding 
of  the  city,  he  reminds  us,  bore  on  the  reverse,  the  Tyche 

1  According  to  Hesychius,  Byzas,  the  legendary  founder  of  Byzan- 
tium had  erected  the  temple  to  Rhea.  Consequently  Constantine  would 
be  loath  to  destroy  the  temple  or  remove  its  statue,  although  he  might 
remodel  the  latter. 

2  Z.  F.  K.  C,  vol.  viii,  p.  533. 


n6  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [374 

of  the  city,  seated  on  a  throne  with  a  crown  on  her  head 
and  a  horn  of  plenty  in  her  hand,  while  at  her  feet  is  part 
of  a  ship.  This,  Schultze  calls  a  neutral,  symbolic  figure 
that  might  safely  find  a  place  in  a  Christian  church.  Zosi- 
mus,  Schultze  believes,  can  hardly  have  meant  to  represent 
these  two  buildings  as  real  temples,  when  shortly  before  he 
spoke  of  Constantine's  apostasy  and  disregard  of  religious 
conventions  at  Rome. 

Augustus  says  positively,  that  the  city  had  no  pagan 
temples  or  statues  and  Schultze  believes  we  must  reject 
Zosimus'  statements  or  at  least  hold  them  suspect. 

For  our  own  part  Schultze's  conclusions  do  not  seem 
entirely  convincing.  Augustine's  statement  seems  to  apply 
more  particularly  to  the  Constantinople  of  his  own  day, 
than  to  that  of  Constantine.  Eusebius  records  Constan- 
tine's intentions  in  regard  to  paganism  in  Constantinople, 
not  his  achievements.  No  Christian  or  pagan  historians  of 
the  centuries  immediately  following  the  founding  of  New 
Rome,  anywhere  reports  the  Emperor  as  destroying  the 
temples  he  must  have  found  in  Byzantium.1  If,  as  is  likely, 
the  temple  of  Castor  and  Pollux  suffered  at  Constantine's 
hands,  it  was  because  in  enlarging  the  hippodrome,  he 
found  it  in  his  way,  and  either  had  to  destroy  it,  or  in  some 
way,  incorporate  it  into  the  hippodrome.  From  Zosimus' 
account,  he  seems  to  have  done  the  latter,  and  it  is  possible 
that  in  consequence,  it  may  have  been  turned  from  purely 

1  Even  among  later  historians  I  have  come  across  only  one  reference 
to  Constantine's  destruction  of  a  temple  in  the  city  and  this  is  found 
in  the  nth  century  addition  to  Hesychius'  list  of  the  churches  built 
by  Constantine,  v.  Preger,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  19.  "  You  must  know  that 
Saint  Mocios  was  built  some  time  ago  by  Constantine  the  Great,  when 
a  large  number  of  the  Greeks  were  dwelling  there;  and  there  was  a 
temple  of  Zeus  there  by  which  (and  out  of  the  stones  of  which)  he 
built  his  temple;  and  it  was  destroyed  by  Constantine  in  his  third 
consulship." 


375]  PAGANISM  IN  CONSTANTINOPLE  ny 

religious,  to  secular,  uses.  Yet  Septimus  Severus  did 
something  of  the  same  sort  when  he  cut  down  one  of  the 
groves  sacred  to  the  Twins  to  build  the  hippodrome  on  its 
site.  We  must  not  forget  in  either  instance,  that  the  hippo- 
drome itself  was  dedicated  to  the  Dioscuri.  Zosimus  tells 
us  that  next  to  the  altered  temple,  he  placed  the  Delphic 
tripod  with  the  statue  of  Apollo,  and  does  not  here  charge 
the  Emperor  with  any  disrespect  to  the  old  religion.  In  the 
following  paragraph,  however,  after  stating  that  in  the 
forum  Constantine  "  erected  two  temples  ",  he  complains 
bitterly  of  this  impiety  in  removing  Rhea's  lions,  and  giv- 
ing a  supplicating  pose  to  her  hands.  We  are  led  to  believe 
that  Schultze  is  justified  in  believing  that  Constantine  made 
an  Orans  out  of  the  remodeled  statue  of  the  Mother  of  the 
gods.1 

This  remodeled  Rhea  and  the  Tyche  would  seem  incapable 
of  offending  any  but  the  most  intransigent  Christians.  The 
pagans  could  still  see  in  the  two  statues  Rhea  and  Tyche 
the  godesses,  while  in  the  first,  Christians  beheld  the  Virgin 
or  a  symbol  of  the  Christian  life;  and  in  the  latter,  they 
recognized  the  personified  genius  of  their  country.2 

Having  helped  to  give  to  these  two  important  deities  an 
ambiguous  character,  the  Emperor  seems  not  to  have  inter- 

1  An  Orans  was  a  male  or  female  figure  standing  full  face  with  both 
arms  extended,  and  the  palms  of  the  hands  raised.  It  was  one  of  the 
earliest  attitudes  of  prayer  adopted  by  the  Church.  The  Orans  gen- 
erally represents  the  soul  of  the  departed,  but  it  is  thought  to  have 
symbolized  occasionally  the  Church  itself.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  Virgin,  who  received  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  431,  in  spite 
of  the  Nestorians,  the  title  of  Mother  of  God,  was  generally  repre- 
sented in  the  catacombs  as  an  Orans.  Eusebius  tells  us,  V.  C,  bk.  iii, 
ch.  xlviii,  how  the  Emperor  had  his  own  statue  representing  a  suppli- 
ant set  up. 

-  Vide  C.  I.  L.,  vol.  iii,  no.  733,  for  Constantine's  own  dedication  of 
thanks  to  Fortune  in  the  year  332.  "  Fortuna  reduci  ob  devictos 
Gothos." 


H8  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [376 

fered  with  old  temples  or  statues.  It  is  possible  and  highly 
probable,  that  in  the  newer  districts  he  discouraged,  if  he 
did  not  prevent,  the  erection  of  new  pagan  shrines.  There 
is  no  doubt  but  that  he  built  many  splendid  churches  in  his 
new  city,  chief  among  them,  that  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  and 
that  of  St.  Irene.  We  are  led,  however,  to  conclude,  that 
while  the  greater  honor  was  paid  Christianity  in  Constan- 
tinople, the  pagan  religions  were  freely  practised  by  their 
devotees,  who  were  there  allowed  the  same  tolerance  per- 
mitted elsewhere  in  the  East. 


CHAPTER  VI 
Conclusion 

The  examination  of  Constantine's  legislation  for  the 
pagans  leads  to  a  number  of  alluring  questions :  What  did 
the  emperor  really  desire  for  paganism?  Would  he  have 
rejoiced  at  its  destruction,  and  was  he  deliberately  paving 
the  way  for  its  eradication?  Or  was  he  hopeful  that  ex- 
tinction might  gradually  be  brought  about  by  educating 
men  to  exchange  Christianity  for  paganism?  Did  Con- 
stantine, perhaps,  believe  that  the  State  would  maintain  the 
toleration  preached  by  himself,  and,  controlling  all  religious 
organizations,  permit  paganism  as  a  necessary  evil  ?  Inter- 
esting as  these  questions  are  for  speculation,  they  are  more 
or  less  futile,  since  we  do  not  possess  material  that  war- 
rants us  in  drawing  up  positive  answers. 

After  all,  the  charm  of  guessing  what  a  monarch  in- 
tended to  have  done,  pales  before  the  interest  in  examining* 
what  he  actually  achieved.  Let  us  attempt,  then,  to  sum 
up,  in  the  light  of  the  sources  we  have  been  reviewing  in 
this  study,  what  measures  Constantine  took  in  regard  to 
paganism. 

While  favoring  the  religion  into  whose  communion  he 
was  finally  baptized,  Constantine  does  not  appear  to  have 
interfered  seriously  with  other  cults.  It  is  true  that  he 
secularized  state  offices  in  the  East,  and  so  there  separated 
the  ancient  religion  from  its  old-time  union  with  the  State. 
But  we  must  remember  that  this  separation  occurred  only 
in  the  East,  and  that  in  the  West  prominent  offices  were 
held  by  pagans  and  the  usual  sacrifices  which  preceded  all 
377]  ii9 


120  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [378 

business  in  the  Senate  House  were  being  made  at  the  altar 
of  Victory.  No  temple  of  any  kind  was  destroyed  in  the 
West,  and  only  a  peculiar  few  in  the  East.  Not  only  did 
Constantine  allow  himself  to  be  styled  Pontifex  Maximus, 
but  he  did  not  dissolve  reputable  priesthoods,  nor  curtail 
their  privileges  or  emoluments.  There  is  no  conclusive 
evidence  that  he  prohibited  sacrifices,  except  certain  kinds 
connected  with  nefarious  magic  and  divination.  He  did, 
however,  lessen  the  prestige  of  the  state  religion  by  allying 
himself  with  Christianity;  and  the  favor  he  showed  the 
Christians,  even  under  a  bare  system  of  religious  parity, 
was  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  bound  to  work  injury  to 
paganism.  Before  Christian  audiences  Constantine  seems 
to  have  derived  vast  satisfaction  in  expressing  contempt  for 
paganism  and  in  extolling  Christianity.1  As  Julian  later 
was  to  weary  his  auditors  with  long  religio-philosophic  dis- 
sertations, so  Constantine  must  have  bored  his  audiences 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxix.  "He  usually  divided  the  subjects  of  his 
address,  first  thoroughly  exposing  the  error  of  polytheism,  and  prov- 
ing the  superstition  of  the  Gentiles  to  be  mere  fraud  and  a  cloak  for 
impiety.  He  then  would  assert  the  sole  sovereignty  of  God,"  etc. 
Constantine  in  the  oration  attributed  to  him  is  reported  as  saying, 
"  we  declare  further  with  all  confidence  that  the  very  honors  and  wor- 
ship which  the  deities  receive  from  men  are  accompanied  by  acts  of 
wantonness  and  profligacy.  Once  more;  the  experienced  and  skillful 
sculptor,  having  formed  the  conception  of  his  design,  perfects  his  work 
according  to  the  rules  of  art;  and  in  a  little  while,  as  if  forgetful  of 
himself,  idolizes  his  own  creation,  and  adores  it  as  an  immortal  god. 
.  .  .  But  why  do  I  defile  my  tongue  with  unhallowed  words,  when  my 
object  is  to  sound  the  praises  of  the  true  God?  .  .  .  Away  then,  ye 
impious,  for  still  ye  may  while  vengeance  on  your  transgressions  is  yet 
withheld ;  begone  to  your  sacrifices,  your  feasts,  your  scenes  of  revelry 
and  drunkenness,  wherein,  under  the  semblance  of  religion,  your 
hearts  are  devoted  to  profligate  enjoyment,  and  pretending  to  perform 
sacrifices,  yourselves  are  the  willing  slaves  of  your  own  pleasures." 
V.  Oratio  Constantini,  chs.  iv,  v,  xi.  Date  uncertain.  Eusebius  re- 
ports it  among  events  of  333-4.     It  may  have  been  given  at  Nicaea. 


379]  CONCLUSION 


121 


with  the  discourses  that  so  delighted  the  theological  soul  of 
Eusebius.  However,  a  pagan  could  bear  with  fair  equa- 
nimity the  literary  attacks  on  paganism  while  he  was  al- 
lowed to  pursue  his  undisturbed  way  in  practising  the  de- 
rided cults.  In  closing  his  Life  of  Constantine,  Eusebius 
speaks  of  the  Emperor  as  "  having  alone  abolished  utterly 
the  error  of  polytheism  and  discountenanced  idolatry  in 
every  form."  *  He  may  have  had  in  mind  simply  the  Em- 
peror's theological  refutations  of  paganism  and  his  personal 
adherence  to  Christianity,  and  never  have  intended  the 
meaning  usually  attached  to  the  statement. 

While  recommending  his  pagan  subjects  to  adopt  Chris- 
tianity, Constantine  nowhere  commands  them  to  take  such 
a  step.2  In  referring  to  Constantine's  forbearance  towards 
Christians  who  were  opponents  of  his  party  in  Church 
synods,  Eusebius  testifies  "but  as  to  those  who  proved  in- 
capable of  sound  judgment,  he  left  them  entirely  at  the 
disposal  of  God,  and  never  himself  desired  harsh  measures 
against  anyone."  3 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  lxxv.  Elsewhere,  ibid.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  lxi,  he  refers  to 
the  Emperor  as  "warning  his  subjects  against  superstitious,  (demon- 
iacal?)  error  and  encouraging  them  in  the  pursuit  of  true  godliness. 

8  Aur.  Vic.  says  Constantine  died  deeply  beloved  by  the  Romans  and 
Eusebius  tells  how  eager  the  Romans  were  to  inter  his  body  in  the  old 
capital.  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  lxix.  "On  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  emper- 
or's death  in"  the  imperial  city,  the  Roman  senate  and  people  felt  the  an- 
nouncement as  the  heaviest  and  the  most  afflictive  of  all  calamities, 
and  gave  themselves  up  to  an  excess  of  grief.  The  baths  and  markets 
were  closed,  the  public  spectacles,  and  all  other  recreations  in  which 
men  of  leisure  are  accustomed  to  indulge,  were  interrupted.  .  .  .  Nor 
was  their  sorrow  expressed  only  in  words ;  they  proceeded  to  honor 
him,  by  the  dedication  of  paintings  to  his  memory,  with  the  same 
respect  as  before  his  death.  The  design  of  these  pictures  embodied  a 
representation  of  heaven  itself,  and  depicted  the  emperor  reposing  in 
an  ethereal  mansion  above  the  celestial  vault."  This  last  sounds  like 
a  regulation  pagan  representation  of  apotheosis ! 

3  V.  C,  bk.  i.  ch.  xlv. 


I22  TOLERATION  UNDER  CONSTANTINE  [380 

This  mildness  is  elsewhere  reflected  in  the  picture  Euse- 
bius  gives  us  of  Constantine's  disposition  towards  all  evil- 
doers in  the  empire.  "  Meanwhile  since  there  was  no  fear 
of  capital  punishment  to  deter  from  the  commission  of 
crime,  for  the  emperor  was  uniformly  inclined  to  clemency, 
and  none  of  the  provincial  governors  visited  offenses  with 
their  proper  penalties,  this  state  of  things  drew  no  small 
degree  of  blame  on  the  general  administration  of  the  em- 
pire; whether  justly  or  not,  let  everyone  form  his  own 
judgment:  for  myself,  I  only  ask  permission  to  record  the 
fact."  1  There  is  no  warrant  for  belief  that  Constantine 
showed  to  pagans  a  less  forbearing  disposition  than  that  he 
exhibited  to  heretics  or  to  criminals. 

To  those  who  pointing  to  the  bulk  of  beneficent  legisla- 
tion for  Christians  call  attention  to  the  absence  of  anything 
of  the  sort  for  pagans,  as  evidence  of  Constantine's  anti- 
pagan  temper,  several  explanations  may  be  offered.  There 
was  no  need  for  much  legislation  for  religions  which  had 
long  held  positions  of  security  and  favor  in  the  state.2 
Special  acts  of  favor  that  Constantine  may  have  shown 
pagan  cults  or  individuals  would  hardly  be  recorded  by 
Christian  historians,  even  if  they  had  been  brought  to  their 
notice.  We  should  not  expect  to  find  the  records  of  such 
acts,  if  they  took  legislative  form,  preserved  in  the  codifi- 
cation of  Theodosius'  time. 

To  conclude,  we  believe  that  on  the  whole  Constantine, 

1  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxi.  Julian  in  his  satire  on  Constantine  in  the 
"Caesars"  pictures  that  emperor  as  ranging  himself  alongside  of  Wan- 
tonness, who  receives  him  with  affection,  v.  p.  290. 

*  To  the  other  religion,  Judaism,  that  like  Christianity  had  failed  to 
be  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  pagan  cults  in  the  state,  Constantine 
granted  in  330  and  331  various  favors.  Its  priests  were  freed  from  all 
financial  exactions  and  from  that  time  Judaism  enjoyed  the  pecuniary 
exemption  of  other  religions  in  the  Empire.     V.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  8-2,  3,  4. 


3g!]  CONCLUSION  I23 

throughout  his  whole  reign,  lived  up  to  the  policy  of  tol- 
eration set  forth  at  Milan  by  himself  and  Licinius.  While 
we  may  regard  him  as  the  first  Christian  Emperor  and  the 
first  to  put  Christianity  quite  on  a  par  with  paganism,  he 
was  neither  the  first  to  make  Christianity  a  legal  religion, 
for  Galerius  had  done  that  in  311,  nor  the  first  to  legislate 
against  pagan  cults ;  for  that  his  successors  are  responsible. 


PART  II 

LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  IN  THE 
ROMAN  CODES 


CHAPTER  I 
Law  in  the  Later  Empire 

Most  of  the  laws  of  Constantine  and  his  successors 
which  have  been  preserved,  are  to  be  found  in  the  two 
great  imperial  codifications — that  of  Theodosius  II 1  and 
that  of  Justinian. 

Although  Theodosius  commanded  his  legal  commission 
to  include  in  the  codification  all  general  laws  from  Constan- 
tine's  time,  even  those  that  had  become  obsolete,  there  re- 
main a  number  of  laws,  as  well  as  all  rescripts  to  private) 

1  Theodosius  ordered  that  his  code  should  be  modeled  on  the  Codices 
Gregoriani  and  Hermogiani.  The  Emperor  directed  the  compilers  to 
include  in  the  codification  edicts  and  other  general  laws  from  the 
time  of  Constantine,  not  omitting  those  which  had  been  abrogated, 
for  their  date  and  position  would  distinguish  them  from  those  in  force. 
As  for  the  text,  they  were  to  reproduce  it  purely  and  simply,  con- 
tenting themselves  with  omitting  what  did  not  absolutely  form  part 
of  the  edict  i.  e.  the  directions  for  publication,  the  superscription  of 
the  emperor  and  even  the  preface  or  statements  of  the  raison  d'etre 
of  the  law.  Besides  containing  statutes,  the  code  was  to  set  forth 
responsae  of  juris  consults,  etc.  The  commission  never  finished  its 
task,  and  a  new  one  was  appointed  435  which  made  a  compilation  of 
statute  laws,  but  abandoned  the  project,  as  far  as  it  related  to  case  law. 
This  later  commission  was  given  more  liberal  instructions  than  the 
earlier  group,  and  was  permitted  to  modify  the  text  if  it  were  am- 
biguous or  ungraceful.  The  codification  was  completed  Feb.  15,  438, 
and  was  in  use  in  the  following  January.  Vide  C.  Th.,  p.  2.  Also  i,  1-5 
and  6.  Cf.  P.  Kriiger,  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und  Litteratur  der 
Rotnischen  Rechts,  pp.  279  et  seq. 

The  best  text  of  the  Theodosian  Code  is  that  of  Mommsen  and  Meyer, 
which  was  published  in  two  volumes,  1905,  and  which  has  largely 
superseded  Haenel's  edition  of  1842.  The  edition  of  Jacques  Godefroy, 
published  in  1665  after  the  author's  death,  is  invaluable,  to  any  student 
of  the  code,  on  account  of  its  learned  commentaries. 

385]  I27 


128  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [386 

persons,  which  must  be  sought  elsewhere.  Some  of  these 
may  be  found  in  an  abridgement  of  the  Code,  the  Lex 
Romana  Visigothorum: x 

Along  with  the  Theodosian  Code  are  always  cited  the 
Constitutiones  Sirmondianae,  a  group  of  some  sixteen  or 
eighteen  decrees,2  and  the  Theodosian  and  the  post-Theo- 
dosian  Novellae. 

In  the  East,  in  529,  upon  the  completion  of  the  new  codi- 
fication of  Justinian,  the  Theodosian  compilation  was  sup- 

1  Called  sometimes  Breviarum  Alarici,  compiled  at  the  order  of 
Alaric  II,  506,  for  his  Roman  subjects,  and  composed  of  extracts 
from  C.  Th.  and  post-Theod.  Novellae,  an  abridgment  of  two  books 
of  the  Institutes  of  Gaius,  with  extracts  from  the  sentences  of  Paulus 
and  the  two  early  codifications  Gregorian  and  Hermogenian  and  a 
fragment  of  Papinian.  This  collection  was  used  as  a  law  book  in  the 
Visigothic  kingdom  until  about  653,  and  continued  to  be  used  in  the 
Southern  part  of  France  during  the  Middle  Ages.  Other  barbarian 
codes,  c.  g.,  Lex  Romana  Burgundionum,  etc.,  contain  some  Roman 
enactments. 

Certain  ecclesiastical  collections  have  a  number  of  imperial  decrees 
of  the  period,  not  contained  in  the  Theodosian  Code  or  the  Novellae, 
e.  g.,  Acts  of  the  Ecumenical  Councils  of  Ephesus,  431,  Chalccdon, 
451  and  Constantinople,  553;  of  great  importance  are  the  collection  of 
Quesnel  and  the  Collectio  Avellana.  Haenel  in  his  Corpus  Legum  ab 
imperatoribus  Romanis  ante  Justinianum  has  brought  together  a  good 
many  of  these  besides  others,  found  or  referred  to,  in  purely  literary 
sources.    Q.  v.  vol.  i,  pp.  186-247. 

2  This  collection,  mostly  touching  ecclesiastical  questions,  was  first 
found  in  connection  with  a  collection  of  conciliar  decrees  of  Gaul. 
They  get  their  name  from  their  first  editor,  Jacques  Sirmond.  The 
first  sixteen  decrees  seem  to  be  in  the  original,  and  probably  complete, 
form;  the  last  two  contain  extracts  of  statements  from  the  Theo- 
dosian Code.  The  decrees  included  by  Mommsen  were  drawn  up  be- 
tween the  years  333-408.  The  validity  of  this  collection  was  contested 
at  first  by  Godefroy  and  others.  Both  Haenel  and  Mommsen  discuss 
this  question  in  their  editions  of  the  Theodosian  Code.  There  are  no 
longer  serious  doubts  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  collection  as  a 
whole.  The  first  decree  giving  wide  jurisdiction  to  bishops  is  still 
suspect  in  some  quarters.  Mommsen  prints  the  last  two  of  the  eighteen 
as  i,  27,  1,  and  i,  27,  2  in  the  body  of  the  Code.  V.  Haenel,  op.  cit., 
Mommsen  Prolegomena  in  C.  Th.  vol.  i,  part  I,  pp.  ccclxxviii  et  seq. 
also  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  293. 


387]  LAW  IN  THE  LATER  EMPIRE  I2o, 

planted  by  the  Codification  of  Justinian,  into  which  codex 
was  crowded  such  of  the  statute  law  as  the  compiling  legists 
were  commanded  to  include.1 

There  remains  another  class  of  sources  for  the  students 
of  imperial  legislation  of  the  fifth  century — the  histories 
and  chronicles.  Imbedded  in  the  text  of  such  works,  are 
to  be  discovered  decrees  and  rescripts  not  extant  elsewhere. 
For  example,  in  this  group  of  writings  there  are  preserved 
for  us  such  invaluable  documents  as  Galerius'  Edict  of  Tol- 
eration, and  Licinius'  Nicomedian  decree.  Many  of  the 
laws  transmitted  in  these  literary  sources  are  unfortunately 
not  recorded  in  their  original  legal  form,  and  frequently 
the  value  of  the  reference  is  impaired  by  our  suspicions  of 
the  prejudice  of  the  transmitting  medium.  However,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  whole  context  of  the  book,  and  used 
with  the  legal  codes,  they  constitute  a  highly  important  class 
of  sources  for  our  particular  study.  The  form  of  the  whole 
mass  of  imperial  legislation  varies  considerably.  The 
greatest  range  of  variation,  naturally,  is  found  in  the  lit- 
erary sources. 

1  On  February  13,  528,  Justinian  appointed  a  commission  of  ten  men, 
among  whom  was  Tribonius,  magister  ofhciorum ,  and  Theophilus,  pro- 
fessor of  law  at  Constantinople,  to  undertake  the  new  codification. 
This  new  code  was  not  to  form  a  complement  to  the  Theodosian  Code, 
but  to  supplant  it,  and  all  others  in  existence.  The  commissioners 
were  ordered  to  exclude  all  obsolete  laws,  to  avoid  repetitions  and 
contradictions,  and  to  give  a  clear,  concise  form  to  such  enactments 
as  they  preserved.  The  compilers  were  even  authorized  to  make  a 
single  composite  law  of  a  group  of  similar  laws,  if  this  seemed  ad- 
visable. Vide  Preface  of  code  for  these  instructions.  The  Codex  was 
completed  April  7,  529,  and  went  into  use  April  16th,  and  from  that 
date  it  was  forbidden  to  use  the  older  codes  or  novellae.  The  Digest 
and  Institutes  appeared  later.  The  name  Corpus  Juris  Civilis  was  first 
applied  to  this  compilation  of  Justinian  about  the  eleventh  century. 
The  best  text  of  the  Corpus  Juris  Civilis  is  that  of  Kriiger-Mommsen- 
Schoell-Kroll  in  2  vols.,  1906,  Berlin.  There  is  also  a  very  free  German 
translation  by  Otto-Schilling-Sintenis,  Leipsig,  1839,  in  7  volumes.  The 
Digest  has  been  translated  into  French.  Both  the  Digest  and  Institutes 
have  been  translated  into  English. 


130  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [388 

There  had  come  by  the  fourth  century  to  be  but  one 
source  of  legislation  in  the  empire — the  emperor.  He  is- 
sued at  will  edicts,  decrees  and  rescripts  whose  old  distinc- 
tions had  largely  broken  down.  For  the  most  part  a  rescript 
continued  to  have  a  narrower  application  than  had  an  edict 
or  decree,1  but  it  sometimes  carried  equally  general  applica- 
tion. 

Imperial  edicts  were  addressed  sometimes  to  the  whole 
people,  sometimes  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  particular  local- 
ity. Others  were  addressed  to  the  Senate,  but  the  greater 
number  were  directed  to  the  most  important  officials  of  the 
localities  affected  by  the  enactment,  and  to  them  was  al- 
lotted the  duty  of  publishing  the  law  throughout  their  dis- 
tricts. Sometimes,  if  a  large  number  of  officials  were 
affected  by  the  law  all  the  people  might  be  addressed  by 
the  imperial  chancellery.2  The  chief  copy  of  the  edict  often 
mentioned  in  the  inscription  only  one  name,  of  those  to 
whom  copies  were  addressed,  but  at  the  end  of  the  docu^ 
ment,  all  names  might  be  listed.  Hence  it  sometimes  hap- 
pens that  two  copies  of  the  same  edict  bear  different  dates 

1  Seeck  in  his  Sogen.  Edickt  v.  M.,  pp.  381-2,  carefully  distinguishes 
between  an  imperial  decree  and  an  edict.  The  latter,  he  says,  began  with 
the  words  Impcrator  Caesar,  then  the  monarch's  name  and  title — dicit. 
If  there  were  more  than  one  emperor,  all  the  names  were  set 
down  in  order  and  the  verb  became  plural.  Such  an  edict  was  not 
addressed  to  any  particular  person.  A  later  type  of  edict  was  not 
unlike  a  letter  in  form,  and  was  addressed  to  all  the  subjects  of  the 
empire,  or  to  the  population  of  a  particular  district.  Both  forms  of 
edicts  had  the  common  characteristic  that  they  were  addressed  di- 
rectly to  the  people.  A  decree,  on  the  other  hand,  was  directed  to  an 
official.  Kriiger,  whom  I  follow,  does  not  make  this  distinction.  The 
most  important  distinction  between  a  rescript  and  other  imperial  acts, 
lies  in  the  fact  that  a  rescript  normally  deals  with  an  inquiry.  As  a 
rule  it  decided  a  legal  point,  although  it  might  run  over  into  a  formal 
legislative  act. 

2  Here  I  follow  Kriiger. 


389]  LAW  IN  THE  LATER  EMPIRE  ^j 

and  addresses.  Up  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  we 
find  edicts  of  a  general  nature  addressed  to  provincial  gov- 
ernors or  inferiors  officers  and  sometimes  it  appears  such  a 
copy,  instead  of  the  original  edict,  was  preserved  in  the 
collection.1 

The  common  way  to  publish  an  edict  was  to  hang  it  up — 
for  an  unknown  period ; 2  it  appears  to  have  been  excep- 
tional to  have  it  posted  for  a  whole  year.  The  edict  was 
posted  in  the  chief  cities;  in  Rome,  Trajan's  Forum  was  one 
of  the  regular  places  for  such  posting.3 

As  a  general  rule  those  to  whom  the  decree  was  addressed 
received  instructions  charging  them  with  publication  and 
notification  to  lower  officials  to  give  the  document  the  ut- 
most publicity  in  the  provinces.  If  the  edict  concerned  only 
a  few  persons,  sometimes  the  formalities  of  publication 
were  complied  with,  sometimes  neglected. 

Constitutions  directed  to  the  Senate  were  read  aloud  in 
that  body  and  were  not  required  to  be  posted.  From 
time  to  time,  the  emperor  might  order  a  particular  law  to 
be  engraved  upon  a  bronze  tablet,  to  perpetuate  it  more  ef- 
fectively.4 

Whether  the  law  had  immediate  force  upon  publication 
we  are  not  positively  informed ;  but  most  of  the  texts  imply 
it,  and  some  formally  declare  it.5 

At  one  time  rescripts  and  edicts  had  similar  legal  appli- 

1  C.  Th.,  ii,  27,  1. 

2  C.  Th.,  ix,  7,  6. 

3  Cf.  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  266,  note. 

*  V.  C.  Th.,  xi,  27-1,315  May.  "  Aereis  tabulis  vel  cerussatis  aut 
linteis  mappis  scribta  per  omnes  civitates  Italiae  proponatur  lex." 

5  Seeck,  Die  Zeitfolge  der  Gesetze  Constantins,  in  Zeitschrift  der 
Savigny-Stiftung  fur  Rechtsgeschichte,  1889,  vol.  x,  p.  16,  believes  that 
a  law  became  operative  in  each  province  the  very  day  it  was  published. 
Hence,  locally,  it  was  more  significant  to  know  the  date  when  a  law 
was  accepta  et  proposila  than  when  it  was  drawn  up. 


!32  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [390 

cation,  but  Constantine  decreed  that  edicts  were  not  to  ob- 
tain against  the  provisions  of  the  general  law.1  Arcadius 
forbade  citing  rescripts  except  for  the  special  instance  for 
which  they  were  drawn  up.2  Valentinian  confirmed  this, 
but  excepted  rescripts  which  stated  that  the  ruling  was  to 
have  application  in  analogous  cases.3  Justinian  widened 
this  exception  by  allowing  general  application,4  even  if  no 
direction  for  this  were  stated  in  the  rescript,  provided  a 
legal  principle  seemed  set  forth  in  the  instrument.5 

In  the  fourth  century  the  chief  judicial  counsellor  of 
the  emperor  was  the  Quaestor  sacri  palatii,  and  it  was  he, 
who  held  the  place  of  influence  in  the  consistoriwm  in  re- 
gard to  all  legal  business.6  It  was  his  duty  to  verify  and 
countersign  the  documents  which  were  written  in  the  style 
peculiar  to  the  chancellery  alone.  This  done,  the  emperor 
signed  with  purple  ink.  The  document  was  then  registered 
for  the  imperial  archives. 

The  laws  were  likewise  transcribed  in  the  regesta  of  the 
magistrates  to  whom  they  were  addressed,  and  the  dates 
of  receiving  (accepta)  and  of  posting  (proposita)  were 
carefully  recorded. 

As  the  division  of  the  labor  of  government  among  two 
or  more  emperors  did  not  destroy  the  theory  of  the  unity  of 
the  empire,  so  it  did  not  injure  the  principle  of  the  unity  of 
Roman  law.  After  Diocletian,  we  find  laws  emanating 
from  one  or  another  of  the  rulers ;  but  such  laws  were  pub- 
lished in  the  name  of  all  the  Augusti,  and  were  applicable  to 

1  C.  Th.,  i,  2-2. 

2  C.  Th.,  i,  2-1 1. 
8  C.  J.,  i,  14,  23. 
*  C.  J.,  i,  14-2. 

5  Annotations  and  pragmatica  were  akin  to  rescripts. 

6  For  Theodosius  II's  ruling  in  regard  to  the  business  of  drawing  up 
a  law  cf.  C.  /.,  i,  14-8. 


39 1 ]  LAW  IN  THE  LATER  EMPIRE  T33 

the  entire  empire.  This  was  true  not  only  of  edicts  but  of 
general  laws.1  The  question  arises  as  to  whether  a  prince 
could,  in  his  own  name  alone,  decree  laws  directly  appli- 
cable to  the  part  of  the  empire  which  he  did  not  govern. 
While  he  could  not  in  general  do  so,  it  is  certain  that  Dio- 
cletian did  this  very  thing.  He  did  it  by  virtue  of  his  super- 
iority over  his  colleagues.2 

It  would  appear  that  when  an  Augustus  was  appointing 
a  colleague,  he  could  reserve  to  himself  supreme  legislative 
rights.3  The  Senate  at  Rome  seems  to  have  given  such  a 
prerogative  to  Constantine  in  312  after  his  victory  over 
Maxentius. 

Mommsen,  while  granting  the  existence  of  the  theory  in 
the  Roman  Empire,  that  the  law  was  one  and  the  same  to 
the  remotest  corners  of  the  state,  shows  that,  in  practice, 
there  was  sometimes  no  real  unity.  The  theory  of  this  unity 
was  based  upon  the  idea  of  perpetual  harmony  among  the 
emperors.  In  case  of  discord  between  Augusti,  the  stronger 
could,  of  course,  withstand  the  will  of  his  opponent.  This 
idea  of  legislative  equality  and  harmony  among  the  Au- 
gusti, Mommsen  declares,  did  not  prevent  certain  special 
rights  being  reserved  to  the  senior  Augustus  alone,  when 
there  were  several  Augusti,  who  had  received  the  imperial 
title  at  different  times.  In  fact,  Mommsen  believes,  that 
complete  equality  in  legal  power  was  enjoyed  by  imperial 

1  See  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  365,  in  the  French  translation.  Cf.  Schiller, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  36. 

3  Ibid. 

3  See  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  bk.  xxvii,  ch.  vi,  p.  16.  "  But  in  this 
affair,  Valentenian  went  beyond  the  custom  which  had  been  estab- 
lished for  several  generations,  in  making  his  brother  and  his  son,  not 
Caesar,  but  emperors;  .  .  .  Nor  had  any  one  yet  ever  created  a  col- 
league with  powers  equal  to  his  own,  except  the  emperor  Marcus 
Aurelius,  who  made  his  adopted  brother,  Verus,  his  colleague  in  the 
empire  without  any  inferiority  of  power." 


134  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [392 

colleagues,  only  when  the  Augusti  were  brothers.  Even  a 
son  did  not  share  full  power  with  his  father.1 

We  do  not  know  how  the  law  of  one  emperor  was  made 
operative  throughout  the  territory  of  his  colleagues.  A 
single  example  that  we  possess  sheds  very  little  light.  The 
emperor  of  the  East  granted  a  privilege  to  the  jews,  and 
that  race  in  the  West  claimed  this  also;  but  the  emperor  of 
the  West  decided  that  this  enactment  did  not  apply  to  his 
dominions.2 

Evidently  the  theory  of  the  unity  of  the  Roman  law  was 
not  always  practised.  Theodosius  II  seemed  to  be  con- 
scious of  this,  and  in  429  published  a  decree  confirming  the 
general  theory  of  the  unity  of  the  law,  yet  seemingly  recog- 
nizing the  practical  need  for  latitude  in  its  application.  He 
decreed  3  that  whatever  law  was  promulgated  in  one  part 

1  Romisches  Staatsrecht,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1066  et  seq. 

3  Cf.  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  365.  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  158.  398  Feb.  13  vel  Sep. 
13.  Idem  AA.  Theodoro  P.  Po.  Vaccillare  per  Apuliam  Calabriamque 
plurimos  ordines  civitatum  comperimus,  quia  Judaicae  superstitionis 
sunt  et  quadam  se  lege,  quae  in  Orientis  partibus  lata  est,  necessitate 
subeundorum  munerum  aestimant  defendendos.  Itaque  hac  auctoritate 
decernimus,  ut  eadem,  si  qua  est,  lege  cessante,  quam  constat  meis 
partibus  esse  damnosam,  omnes,  qui  quolibet  modo  curiae  jure  de- 
bentur,  cujuscumque  superstitionis  sint,  ad  conplenda  suarum  civita- 
tum munia  teneantur.  Dat.  Id.  Sept.  Med(iolano)  Hon(orio)  A.  II. 
et  Eutychiano  Conss. 

On  the  other  hand,  Kriiger  points  out  that  Licinius,  De  vita  sua,  ed. 
Reiske,  p.  97,  states  that  a  law  of  Valentinian  I  in  his  favor  (C.  Th., 
iv,  6,  4)  was  confirmed  by  Valens.  Might  not  this  formal  confirmation 
itself  prove  legislative  independence,  as  conclusively  as  does  Honorius' 
action  in  the  law  cited  above? 

C.  J.,  v,  14,  19,  contains  a  law  of  Arcadius  of  the  year  405,  in  which 
he  abrogates  the  prohibition  of  marriage  of  consobrini.  C.  Th.,  iii, 
10,  1,  has,  on  the  other  hand,  a  law  of  Honorius  of  409,  implying  that 
the  law  forbidding  such  marriages  is  still  in  force.  Godefroy,  in  his 
note  to  C.  Th.,  iii,  12,  3,  concludes  that  the  law  of  Arcadius  had  never 
been  in  force  in  the  West. 

3  C.  Th.,  i,  1,  5.    429  Mart  26. 

Impp.  Theod.  et  Valent.  AA.  ad  Senatum. 

...  In  futurum  autem  si  quid  promulgari  placuerit,  ita  in  conjunc- 


393]  LAW  IN  THE  LATER  EMPIRE  135 

of  the  empire  should  have  force  in  the  other  part,  as  soon 
as  the  legislating  monarch  should  formally  transmit  it  to 
his  colleague.  This  provision,  that  a  law  of  one  Augustus 
must  be  forwarded,  with  due  formalities  to  another  Au- 
gustus, before  it  could  become  operative  in  the  latter's  dis- 
trict, while  safeguarding  the  common  legislative  preroga- 
tives of  all  Augusti,  seems  at  the  same  time,  to  imply  that 
certain  laws  were  local  in  character  and  would  not  be  for- 
warded beyond  the  district  for  which  they  were  originally 
drawn  up.1  In  this  same  decree  Theodosius  reserved  to 
himself  the  right  of  amending  or  rejecting  any  law  sent 
him  by  a  colleague.2 

Theodosius  himself  sent  Novellae  in  447  to  Valen- 
tinian  III  who  published  some  the  following  year,3  but 
Mommsen  says  we  cannot  tell  whether  Valentinian  pub~ 
lished  all  that  his  father-in-law  sent  him.4  Leo,  in  468, 
sent  one  law  to  Anthemius  to  whom  he  had  given  power  in 
the  West.  There  is  of  course  in  the  fifth  century,  less  ques- 
tion of  the  transmission  of  laws  from  the  West  to  the  East, 
than  vice  versa.  It  seems  as  though  it  were  less  common 
for  laws  to  be  transmitted  from  the  West,  than  from  the 
East,  to  other  parts  of  the  empire.  At  least  in  the  Code  of 
Justinian  there  are  no  western  laws  later  than  43s.5 

tissimi  parte  alia  valebit  imperii,  ut  non  fide  dubia  nee  privata  adser- 
tione  nitatur,  sed  ex  qua  parte  fuerit  constitutum,  cum  sacris  trans- 
mittatur  adfatibus  in  alterius  quoque  recipiendum  scriniis  et  cum  edict- 
orum  sollemnitate  vulgandum.  Missum  enim  suscipi  et  indubitanter 
optinere  conveniet,  emendandi  vel  revocandi  potestate  nostrae  clemen- 
tiae  reservata.  Declarari  autem  invicem  oportebit  nee  admittenda  ali- 
ter.    Dat.  vii  Kal.  April.  Constp.     Florentio  et  Dionysio  Conss. 

1  Cf.  Mommsen  in  his  Prolegomena  to  Novellae  Theodosiani,  p.  1. 

2  "  Emendandi  vel  revocandi  potestate  nostrae  clemtiae  reservata." 
Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  390,  interprets  this  as  meaning  that  the  right  of 
emending  or  rejecting  was  exercised  by  all  Augusti.  It  doubtless  was 
practiced,  but  this  clause  hardly  can  mean  to  authorize  it. 

1  Novellae  Theodosiani,  2,  par.  i. 

4  V.  Prolegomena  to  Novellae  Theod.,  p.  2. 

5  Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  391  Fr.  translation. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Religious  Legislation  of  Constantine 
a.  decrees  of  toleration 

1.  Decree  of  Nicomedia 

Lactantius,  De  Mortibus  Persecutorum,  ch.  xlviii,  in 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers: 

Not  many  days  after  the  victory,  Licinius  having  re- 
ceived part  of  the  soldiers  of  Daia  into  his  service  and 
properly  distributed  them,  transported  his  army  into  Bith- 
ynia,  and  having  made  his  entry  into  Nicomedia,  he  re- 
turned thanks  to  God  through  whose  aid  he  had  overcome; 
and  on  the  Ides  of  June,  while  he  and  Constantine  were  con- 
suls for  the  third  time,  he  commanded  the  following  edict 
for  the  restoration  of  the  church  directed  to  the  president 
of  the  province  to  be  promulgated :  "  When  we,  Constan- 
tine and  Licinius,  emperors,  had  an  interview  at  Milan,  and 
conferred  together  with  respect  to  the  good  and  security 
of  the  commonweal,  it  seemed  to  us  that  amongst  those 
things  that  are  profitable  to  mankind  in  general,  the  rever- 
ence paid  to  the  Divinity  1  merited  our  first  and  chief  atten- 
tion; and  that  it  was  proper  that  the  Christians,  and  all 
others,  should  have  liberty  to  follow  that  mode  of  religion 
which  to  each  of  them  seemed  best;  so  that  God,2  who  is 
seated  in  heaven,  might  be  benign  and  propitious  to  us,  and 
to  every  one  under  our  government.     And  therefore,  we 

1  Quibus  divinitatis  reverentia  continebatur. 

2  Quo  quicquid  (est)  divinitatis  in  sede  caelesti. 

136  [394 


395]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       137 

judged  it  a  salutary  measure,  and  highly  consonant  to  right 
reason,  that  no  man  should  be  denied  leave  of  attaching 
himself  to  the  rites  of  the  Christians,  or  to  whatever  other 
religion  his  mind  directed  him;  that  thus  the  supreme  Di- 
vinity,1 to  whose  worship,  we  freely  devote  ourselves,  might 
continue  to  vouchsafe  His  favor  and  beneficence  to  us.a 
And  accordingly,  we  give  you  to  know  that  without  regard 
to  any  provisions  in  our  former  orders  to  you  concerning 
the  Christians,  *  all  who  choose  that  religion  are  to  be  per- 
mitted, freely  and  absolutely,  to  remain  in  it,  and  not  to  be 
disturbed  anyways,  or  molested.  And  we  thought  fit  to  be 
thus  special  in  the  things  committed  to  your  charge,  that 
you  might  understand  that  the  indulgence  which  we  have 
granted,  in  matters  of  religion  to  the  Christians,  is  ample 
and  unconditional ;  and  perceive  at  the  same  time,  that  the 
open  and  free  exercise  of  their  respective  religions  is 
granted  to  all  others,  as  well  as  to  the  Christians.  For  it 
befits  the  well-ordered  state,  and  the  tranquillity  of  our 
times  that  each  individual  be  allowed,  according  to  his  own 
choice,  to  worship  the  Divinity;  4  and  we  mean  not  to  dero- 
gate aught  from  the  honour  due  to  any  religion  or  its 
votaries.  Moreover  with  respect  to  the  Christians,  we  for- 
merly gave  certain  orders  concerning  the  places  appropri- 
ated for  their  religious  assemblies,  but  now  we  will  that  all 
persons  who  have  purchased  such  places  either  from  our 
exchequer  or  from  anyone  else,  do  restore  them  to  the 
Christians,  without  money  demanded  or  price  claimed,  and 
that  this  be  performed  peremptorily  and  unambiguously ; 
and  we  will  also,  that  they  who  have  obtained  any  right  to 

1  Ut  possit  summa  divinitas. 

*  Here  begin  the  special  provisions  of  the  decree  of  Nicomedia. 

3  For  the  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  this  clause,  v.  supra,  pp.  46  et  seq. 

*  Ut  in  colendo,  quod  quisque  delegerit  habeat  liberam  facultatem. 


I38  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [396 

such  places  by  form  of  gift,  do  forthwith  restore  them  to 
the  Christians ;  reserving  always  to  such  persons,  who  have 
either  purchased  for  a  price  or  gratuitously  acquired  them, 
to  make  application  to  the  judge  of  the  district,  if  they  look 
on  themselves  as  entitled  to  any  equivalent  from  our  benefi- 
cence. All  those  places  are  by  our  intervention,  to  be  im- 
mediately restored  to  the  Christians.  And  because  it  ap- 
pears that  besides  the  places  appropriated  to  religious  wor- 
ship, the  Christians  did  possess  other  places,  which  be- 
longed not  to  individuals,  but  to  their  society  in  general, 
that  is  to  their  Churches,  we  comprehend  all  such  within 
the  regulation  aforesaid,  and  we  will  that  you  cause  them 
all  to  be  restored  to  the  society  or  Churches,  and  that  with- 
out hesitation  or  controversy.  Provided  always,  that  the 
persons  making  restitution  without  a  price  paid  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  seek  indemnification  from  our  bounty.  In  fur- 
thering all  which  things  for  the  behoof  of  the  Christians, 
you  are  to  use  your  utmost  diligence,  to  the  end  that  our 
orders  be  speedily  obeyed,  and  our  gracious  purpose  in  se- 
curing the  tranquillity  promoted.  So  shall  that  divine 
favour,  which  in  affairs  of  the  highest  importance,  we  have 
already  experienced,  continue  to  give  success  to  us,  and  in 
our  successes,  make  the  commonweal  happy.  And  that  the 
tenor  of  these  our  gracious  ordinances  may  be  made  known 
to  all,  we  will  that  you  cause  it  by  your  authority  to  be  pub-' 
lished  everywhere. 

Licinius,  having  issued  this  ordinance,  made  an  harangue 
in  which  he  exhorted  the  Christians  to  rebuild  their  religious 
edifices. 


3Q7]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       i<$g 

2.  Imperial  Decree  of  Constantine  and  Licinius 

Copy  of  Imperial  Laws 

Eusebius,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v,  in  Nicene  and  post-Nicene 
Fathers. 

Let  us  finally  subjoin  the  translations  from  the  Roman 
tongue  of  the  imperial  decree  of  Constantine  and  Licinius. 
"  Perceiving  long  ago  that  religious  liberty  ought  not  to  be 
denied,  but  that  it  ought  to  be  granted  to  the  judgment  and 
desire  of  each  individual  to  perform  his  religious  duties  ac- 
cording to  his  own  choice,  we  had  given  orders  that  every 
man,  Christians  as  well  as  others,  should  preserve  the  faith 
of  his  own  sect  and  religion.1  But  since  in  that  rescript,  in 
which  such  liberty  was  granted  them,  many  and  various 
conditions  2  seemed  clearly  added,  some  of  them,  it  may  be, 
after  a  little  retired  from  such  observance.  When  I,  Con- 
stantine Augustus,  and  I,  Licinius  Augustus,  came  under 
favorable  auspices  to  Milan  and  took  under  consideration 
everything  which  pertained  to  the  common  weal  and  pros- 
perity, we  resolved  among  other  things,  or  rather  first  of 
all,  to  make  such  decrees,  as  seemed  in  many  respects  for 
the  benefit  of  everyone;  namely  such  as  should  preserve 
reverence  and  piety  toward  the  deity.3  We  resolved  that  is 
to  grant  both  to  the  Christians  and  to  all  men  freedom  to 
follow  the  religion  which  they  choose,  ■  that  whatever 
Heavenly  divinity  exists  4  may  be  propitious  to  us,  and  to  all 
that  live  under  our  government.  We  have,  therefore,  de- 
termined, with  sound  and  upright  purpose,  that  liberty  is  to 
be  denied  to  no  one,  to  choose  and  follow  the  religious  ob- 

1  As  to  whether  this  clause  refers  to  the  edict  of  Galerius  or  that  of 
Constantine  or  the  rescript  of  Maximin,  v.  supra,  pp.  46,  50,  52,  53. 

2  For  discussion  of  the  interpretation  of  this  v.  supra,  p.  47,  note  1. 

J  npbg  to  delov,  this  vague  neuter  adjective  seems  better  translated  as 
divinity. 

ib  ti  tvotb  eon  dttOTqg  nal  ovpavlov  irpdy/xaTOC 


\ 


I40  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [398 

servances  of  the  Christians,  but  that  to  each  one  freedom, 
is  to  be  given  to  devote  his  mind  to  that  religion  which  he 
may  think  adapted  to  himself,  in  order  that  the  deity  x  may 
exhibit  to  us  in  all  things  his  accustomed  care  and  favor. 
It  was  fitting  that  we  should  write  that  this  is  our  pleasure, 
that  those  conditions  being  entirely  left  out  which  were 
contained  in  our  former  letter  concerning  the  Christians 
which  was  sent  to  your  devotedness,  everything  that  seemed 
very  severe  and  foreign  to  our  mildness  may  be  annulled, 
and  that  now  everyone  who  has  the  same  desire  to  observe 
the  religion  of  the  Christians  may  do  so  without  molesta- 
tion. We  have  resolved  to  communicate  this  most  fully  to 
thy  care,  in  order  that  thou  mayest  know  that  we  have 
granted  to  these  same  Christians  freedom  and  full  liberty 
to  observe  their  own  religion.  Since  this  has  been  granted 
freely  by  us  to  them,  thy  devotedness  perceives  that  liberty 
is  granted  to  others  also  who  may  wish  to  follow  their  own 
religious  observances;  it  being  clearly  in  accordance  with 
the  tranquillity  of  our  times,  that  each  one  should  have 
the  liberty  of  choosing  and  worshiping  whatever  deity  he 
pleases.  This  has  been  done  by  us  in  order  that  we  might 
not  seem  in  any  way  to  discriminate  against  any  rank  or 
religion.  And  we  decree  still  further  in  regard  to  the 
Christians,  that  their  places  in  which  they  were  formerly 
accustomed  to  assemble  and  concerning  which  in  the  former 
letter  sent  to  thy  devotedness  a  different  command  was 
given,  if  it  appear  that  any  have  bought  them,  either  from 
our  treasury  or  from  any  other  person,  shall  be  restored  to 
the  said  Christians,  without  demanding  money  or  any  other 
equivalent,  with  no  delay  or  hesitation.  If  any  happen  to 
have  received  the  said  places  as  a  gift,  they  shall  restore 
them  as  quickly  as  possible  to  these  same  Christians;  with 
the   understanding  that  if   those  who  have  bought  these 

1  To  Qeiov. 


3QQ ]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       141 

places,  or  those  who  have  received  them  as  a  gift,  demand; 
anything  from  our  bounty,  they  may  go  to  the  judge  of  the 
district,  that  provision  may  be  made  for  them  by  our  clem- 
ency. All  these  things  are  to  be  granted  to  the  society  of 
Christians  by  your  care  immediately  and  without  delay. 
And  since  the  said  Christians  are  known  to  have  possessed 
not  only  those  places  in  which  they  were  accustomed  to  as- 
semble, but  also  other  places,  belonging  not  to  individuals! 
among  them,  but  to  the  society  1  as  a  whole,  that  is,  to  the 
society  of  Christians,  you  will  demand  that  all  these,  in 
virtue  of  the  law  which  we  have  above  stated,  be  restored, 
without  any  hesitation,  to  these  same  Christians;  that  is,  to 
their  society  and  congregation ;  the  above  mentioned  pro- 
vision being  of  course  observed,  that  those  who  restore  them 
without  price  as  we  have  before  said,  may  expect  indemni- 
fication from  our  bounty.  In  all  these  things,  for  the  behoof 
of  the  aforesaid  society  of  Christians,  you  are  to  use  the! 
utmost  diligence,  to  the  end  that  our  command  may  be 
speedily  fulfilled,  and  that  in  this  also,  by  our  clemency, 
provision  may  be  made  for  the  common  and  public  tran- 
quillity. For  by  this  means,  as  we  have  said  before,  the 
divine  favor  toward  us  which  we  have  already  experienced 
in  many  matters,  will  continue  sure  through  all  time.  And 
that  the  terms  of  this,  our  gracious  ordinance,  may  be 
known  to  all,  it  is  expected  that  this  which  we  have 
written  will  be  published  everywhere  by  you  and  brought 
to  the  knowledge  of  all,  in  order  that  this  gracious  ordinance 
of  ours  may  remain  unknown  to  no  one." 

1  McGiffert,  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  p.  380,  states  that  the  use  of  this  word 
"  is  a  distinct  recognition  of  the  full  legal  status  of  the  Christian 
Church  and  of  their  right  as  a  Corporation  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  to 
hold  property.  The  right  did  not  on  this  occasion  receive  recognition 
for  the  first  time,  but  more  distinctly  and  in  broader  terms  than  ever 
before.  Upon  the  right  of  the  Church  to  hold  property  before  the 
publication  of  this  edict  see  especially  Hatch's  Constit.  of  the  Early 
Christian  Churches,  p.  152,  note  25." 


I42  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [400 

3.  Decree  for  the  Inhabitants  of  Palestine 

Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini,  from  N.  P.  N.  F.,  bk.  ii,  chs. 
xxiv-xlii. 

Law  of  Constantine  respecting  Piety  towards  God,  and 
the  Christian  Religion: 

"  Victor  Constantinus,  Maximus  Augustus,  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  province  of  Palestine. 

"  To  all  who  entertain  just  and  sound  sentiments  toward 
the  character  of  the  Supreme  Being,  it  has  long  been  most 
clearly  evident,  and  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  how 
vast  a  difference  there  has  ever  been  between  those  who 
maintain  a  careful  observance  of  the  hallowed  duties  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  those  who  treat  this  religion  with 
hostility  or  contempt.  But  at  this  present  time  we  may  see, 
by  still  more  decisive  instances,  both  how  unreasonable  it 
were  to  question  the  truth  and  how  mighty  is  the  power  of 
the  Supreme  God,  since  it  appears  that  those  who  faithfully 
observe  His  holy  laws  and  shrink  from  the  transgression 
of  His  commandments  are  rewarded  with  abundant  bless- 
ings, and  are  endued  with  well-grounded  hope  as  well  as 
ample  power  for  the  accomplishment  of  their  undertakings. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  who  have  cherished  unpious  senti- 
ments have  experienced  results  corresponding  to  their  own 
evil  choice.  .  .  . 

(Then  follows  an  account  of  the  rewards  of  the  right- 
eous and  the  penalties  of  the  evil  and  how  God  had  chosen 
Constantine  to  be  his  minister.)  "  I  myself  then,  was  the 
instrument  whose  services  he  chose  and  esteemed  suitable 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  will."  Ch.  xxviii.  "  Let 
all  therefore  who  have  exchanged  their  country  for  a  for- 
eign land,  because  they  would  not  abandon  that  reverence 
and  faith  toward  God  to  which  they  had  devoted  themselves 
with  their  whole  hearts,  and  have  in  consequence  at  different 


4oi]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       ^3 

times  been  subject  to  the  cruel  sentence  of  the  courts;  to- 
gether with  any  who  have  been  enrolled  in  the  registers  of 
the  public  courts,  though  in  time  past  exempt  from  such 
office ;  let  these,  I  say,  now  render  thanks  to  God  the  Liber- 
ator of  all,  in  that  they  are  restored  to  their  hereditary 
property,  and  their  wonted  tranquillity.  Let  those  also  who 
have  been  despoiled  of  their  goods,  and  have  hitherto  passed 
a  wretched  existence,  mourning  under  the  loss  of  all  that 
they  possessed,  once  more  be  restored  to  their  former 
homes,  their  families  and  estates,  and  receive  with  joy  the 
bountiful  kindness  of  God."  .  .  . 

Ch.  xxxi.  Provides  for  the  release  of  those  who  have 
been  exiled  on  islands. 

Ch.  xxxii.  Frees  those  ignominiously  employed  in  mines 
and  public  works. 

Ch.  xxxiii.  Provides  that  Christians  who  have  been  dis- 
missed from  the  army  may  enter  it  again  if  they  choose. 

Ch.  xxxiv.  Frees  Christians  who  have  been  condemned 
to  work  in  the  women's  apartments  or  in  other  servile 
capacity. 

Ch.  xxxv.  Deals  with  the  "  Inheritance  of  the  Property 
of  Martyrs  and  Confessors,"  also  of  those  who  have  suf- 
fered banishment  or  Confiscation  of  Property. 

Ch.  xxxvi.  Declares  that  the  Church  is  heir  of  those  who 
leave  no  kindred;  and  free  gifts  to  it  are  confirmed. 

"  But  should  there  be  no  surviving  relation  to1  succeed  in 
due  course  to  the  property  of  those  above  mentioned,  I  mean 
the  martyrs,  or  confessors,  or  those  who  for  some  such 
cause  have  been  banished  from  their  native  land,  in  such 
case  we  ordain  that  the  church  locally  nearest  in  each  in- 
stance shall  succeed  to  the  inheritance.  And  surely  it  will 
be  no  wrong  to  the  departed  that  the  church  should  be  their 
heir,  for  whose  sake  they  have  endured  every  extremity  of 


I44  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [402 

suffering.  We  think  it  necessary  to  add  this  also,  that  in 
case  any  of  the  above-mentioned  persons  have  donated  any 
part  of  their  property  in  the  way  of  free  gift,  possession  of 
such  property  shall  be  assured,  as  is  reasonable,  to  those 
who  have  thus  received  it." 

Ch.  xxxvii.  "  Lands,  Gardens  or  Houses,  but  not  actual 
Produce  from  them  are  to  be  given  back." 

Ch.  xxxviii.  "  In  what  manner  requests  should  be  made 
for  these." 

Ch.  xxxix.  "  The  Treasury  must  restore  Lands,  Gar- 
dens and  Houses  to  the  Churches." 

Ch.  xl.  "  The  Tombs  of  Martyrs  and  Cemeteries  to  be 
restored  to  the  possession  of  the  Churches." 

Ch.  xli.  "  Those  who  have  purchased  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Church  or  received  it  as  a  gift,  are  to  restore  it." 

Ch.  xlii.  "  And  now,  since  it  appears  by  the  clearest  and 
most  convincing  evidence,  that  the  miseries  which  erewhile 
oppressed  the  human  race  are  now  banished  from  every 
part  of  the  world,  through  the  power  of  Almightly  God, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  counsel  and  aid  which  he  is  pleased 
on  many  occasions  to  administer  through  our  agency ;  it 
remains  for  all,  both  individually  and  unitedly,  to  observe 
and  seriously  consider  how  great  this  power  and  how  effi- 
cacious this  grace  are,  which  have  annihilated  and  utterly 
destroyed  this  generation,  as  I  may  call  them,  of  most 
wicked  and  evil  men;  have  restored  joy  to  the  good,  and 
diffused  it  over  all  countries,  and  now  guarantee  the  fullest 
authority  both  to  honor  the  Divine  law  as  it  should  be  hon- 
ored, with  all  reverence,  and  pay  due  observance  to  those 
who  have  dedicated  themselves  to  the  service  of  that  law. 
These  rising  as  from  some  dark  abyss  and,  with  an  enlight- 
ened knowledge  of  the  present  course  of  events,  will  hence- 
forward render  to  its  precepts  that  becoming  reverence  and 
honor  which  are  consistent  with  their  pious  character. 


403]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       145 
"  Let  this  ordinance  be  published  in  our  Eastern  prov- 


4.  Constantine's  Edict  to  the  People  of  the  Provinces  Concerning  the 
Error  of  Polytheism. 

Eus.,  V.  C,  bk,  ii,  chs.  xlviii-lx. 

Victor  Constantinus,  Maximus  Augustus,  to  the  people 
of  the  Eastern  Provinces  : 

Whatever  is  comprehended  under  the  sovereign  laws  of 
nature,  seems  to  convey  to  all  men  an  adequate  idea  of  the 
forethought  and  intelligence  of  the  divine  order.  .  .  . 

1  This  is  the  first  of  the  series  of  enactments  given  by  Eusebius  in 
the  Vita  Constantini  which  are  rejected  as  spurious  by  certain  histor- 
ians. The  list  of  the  questioned  letters  and  edicts  is  as  follows:  (1) 
Edict  to  the  provincials  of  the  Orient,  given  above.  (2)  Letter  to 
Eusebius  and  all  the  bishops  of  the  East  concerning  the  rebuilding  of 
churches,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xlvi.  (3)  Letter  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the  East  in 
which  the  Emperor  confesses  his  faith  in  Christianity,  bk.  ii,  chs. 
xlviii-lx.  (4)  Letter  to  Alexander  and  Arius,  bk.  ii,  chs.  lxiv-lxxii. 
(5)  Circular  letter  to  Christian  communities  with  the  conclusions  of 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  bk.  iii,  chs.  xvii-xx.  (6)  Letter  to  Macarius, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  bk.  iii,  chs.  xxx-xxxii.  (7)  Letter  to  the  Bishop 
of  Palestine  about  building  the  Church  at  Mamre,  bk.  iii,  chs.  lii-liii. 
(8)  Letter  to  the  Congregation  of  Antioch  on  their  choice  of  Euse- 
bius as  Bishop,  bk.  iii,  ch.  ixi.  (9)  Letter  to  Eusebius  on  the  same 
subject,  bk.  iii,  ch.  lxii.  (10)  A  letter  to  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  bk.  iii, 
ch.  lxii.  (11)  The  edict  against  heresies,  bk.  iii,  chs.  lxiv-lv.  (12) 
Letter  to  Sapor  on  the  spread  of  Christianity,  bk.  iv,  chs.  ix-xiii.  (13) 
The  Sunday  prayer  of  the  army,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xx.  (14)  A  letter  of 
thanks  to  Eusebius  for  his  letter  on  Easter,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxv.  (15) 
A  letter  to  Eusebius  concerning  a  manuscript  of  the  Bible  for  the 
newly-erected  churches  in  Constantinople,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxxvi.  (16)  A 
letter  to  the  Synod  of  Tyre.  (17)  Constantine's  oration  "Ad  Sanc- 
torum Coetum." 

Crivellucci,  "  Delia  fede  storica  di  Ensebio,"  Leghorn,  1888,  and 
"  Gli  editti  di  Constantino  ai  provinciali  della  Palestrina  e  agli  Orien- 
tali,"  Studi  storichi,  vol.  iii,  pp.  369  et  seq.,  concluded  that  this  quoted 
list  was  a  series  of  falsifications  of  Eusebius.  Schultze  at  first  doubted 
the  justice  of  the  conclusion,  but  after  investigation  conceded  the 
main  points.  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  xiv.  Mommsen  too  recognied  the 
weight  of  Crivellucci's  proofs.     Pauly- Wissowa,  Real-Ency.  d.  Alter- 


I46  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [404 

Ch.  xlix.  The  former  emperors  I  have  been  accustomed 
to  regard  as  those  with  whom  I  could  have  no  sympathy, 
on  account  of  the  savage  cruelty  of  their  character.  In- 
deed, my  father  was  the  only  one  who  uniformly  practiced 
the  duties  of  humanity,  and  with  admirable  piety  called  for 
the  blessing  of  God  the  Father  on  all  his  actions. 

(Then  follows  an  outline  of  the  Christian  persecutions.) 

tutns-Wiss.  article  on  Constantine,  vol.  iv,  p.  1018,  agrees  with  Cri- 
vellucci  that  the  edict  of  the  provincials  of  Palestine  and  to  the  people 
of  the  Orient  are  forgeries.  In  1898,  Seeck  reopened  the  whole  ques- 
tion in  his  article  entitled,  "  Die  Urkunden  der  Vita  Constantini," 
Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  xviii,  pp.  321  et  seq.  He  confesses  he  had  thought 
with  relief  that  the  question  had  been  settled  and  as  the  documents 
were  forgeries  he  need  never  again  drag  his  mind  through  these 
dreary  phrases.  Now  he  finds  to  his  astonishment  that  they  need  new 
consideration.  The  chief  reason  that  Crivellucci  and  Schultze  refuse 
to  credit  the  documents  is,  that  the  style  does  not  correspond  to 
that  of  the  rest  of  Constantine's  legislation.  These  critics  find  the 
curious  intermingling  of  rhetorical  and  ecclesiastical  language  an  evi- 
dence that  Eusebius  forged  the  series.  Seeck,  on  the  other  hand, 
points  out  that  one  may  find  in  the  edicts  of  earlier  emperors  all  the 
faults  Crivellucci  considers  the  obstacles  to  accepting  the  documents 
as  valid.  Seeck  thinks  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  Eusebius  to 
attempt  to  falsify  or  forge  a  document  in  the  very  part  of  the  empire 
where  the  originals  would  have  been  publicly  posted  not  more  than 
ten  years  before.  Of  the  documents  under  consideration,  Seeck  shows 
that  all  but  two  would  naturally  have  come  under  Eusebius'  imme- 
diate notice,  if  they  were  not  directed  to  him  personally.  The  two 
exceptions  are :  the  Letter  to  Sapor  and  Constantine's  address  to  the 
Assembly  of  the  Saints;  and  it  would  not  have  been  difficult  for  him 
to  get  copies  of  these.  Seeck  finds  that  the  superscriptions  of  these 
documents  are  not  unlike  those  of  Constantine's  laws  in  the  Theo- 
dosian  Code,  where  something  has  been  sacrificed  to  space.  While 
Seeck  believes  that  Eusebius  may  have  changed  the  form  of  some  of 
the  documents,  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  translation  into  Greek, 
or  for  some  other  practical  reason,  he  departs  definitely  from  the 
company  of  Crivellucci  and  Schultze,  and  denying  the  charge  of  falsi- 
fying or  forging  laid  to  Eusebius'  door,  accepts  the  whole  series  as 
genuine.  Boissier,  La  Fin  du  Pag.,  vol.  i,  p.  17,  believes  the  documents 
are  valid,  as  does  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  170.  In  this  matter  we  take  our 
stand  with  Seeck  and  his  party. 


4q5]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       ^7 

Ch.  lv.  And  now  I  beseech  thee,  most  mighty  God,  to  be 
merciful  and  gracious  to  thy  Eastern  nations,  to  thy  people 
in  these  provinces,  worn  as  they  are  by  protracted  miseries  ;. 
and  grant  them  healing  through  thy  servant.  .  .  .  Under 
thy  guidance  have  I  devised  and  accomplished  measures 
fraught  with  blessing;  preceded  by  thy  sacred  sign  have  I 
led  thy  armies  to  victory;  and  still  on  each  occasion  of 
public  danger,  I  follow  the  same  symbol  of  thy  perfections 
while  advancing  to  meet  the  foe.  Therefore  have  I  dedi- 
cated to  thy  service  a  soul  duly  attempered  by  love  and 
fear.  ...  I  hasten  then  to  devote  all  my  powers  to  the 
restoration  of  thy  most  holy  dwelling  place,  which  those 
profane  and  impious  men  have  defiled  by  the  contamination 
of  violence. 

Ch.  lvi.  "  My  own  desire  is,  for  the  common  good  of  the 
world  and  the  advantage  of  all  mankind,  that  thy  people 
should  enjoy  a  life  of  peace  and  undisturbed  concord.  Let 
those,  therefore,  who  still  delight  in  error,  be  made  wel- 
come to  the  same  degree  of  peace  and  tranquillity  which 
they  have  who  believe.  For  it  may  be  that  the  restoration 
of  equal  privileges  to  all  will  prevail  to  lead  them  into  the 
right  path.  Let  no  one  molest  another,  but  let  everyone  do 
as  his  soul  desires.  Only  let  men  of  sound  judgment  be 
assured  of  this,  that  those  only  can  live  a  life  of  holiness  and 
purity  whom  thou  callest  to  a  reliance  on  thy  holy  laws. 
With  regard  to  those  who  will  hold  themselves  aloof  from 
us,  let  them  have,  if  they  please,  their  temples  of  lies;  we 
have  the  glorious  edifice  of  thy  truth,  which  thou  hast  given 
us  as  our  native  home.  We  pray,  however,  that  they  too 
may  receive  the  same  blessing  and  thus  experience  that 
heartfelt  joy  which  unity  of  sentiment  inspires.  (Then 
follow  the  three  chapters  devoted  to  the  glorification  of 
God  for  sending  "  a  pure  light  in  the  person  of  thy  Son  " 
...  for  governing  the  universe,  and  being  the  constant 
teacher  of  good.) 


I48  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [406 

Ch.  lix.  Abundant  thanks,  most  mighty  God  and  Lord 
of  all,  be  rendered  to  thee,  that,  by  so  much  as  our  nature 
becomes  known  from  the  diversified  pursuits  of  man,  by 
so  much  the  more  are  the  precepts  of  thy  divine  doctrine 
confirmed  to  those  whose  thoughts  are  directed  aright,  and 
who  are  sincerely  devoted  to  true  virtue.  As  for  those  who 
will  not  allow  themselves  to  be  cured  of  their  error,  let  them 
not  attribute  this  to  any  but  themselves.  For  that  remedy 
which  is  of  sovereign  and  healing  virtue  is  openly  placed 
within  the  reach  of  all.  Only  let  not  anyone  inflict  an  in- 
jury on  that  religion  which  experience  itself  testifies  to  be 
pure  and  undefiled.  Henceforward,  therefore,  let  us  all 
enjoy  in  common,  the  privilege  placed  within  our  reach; 
I  mean  the  blessing  of  peace,  endeavoring  to  keep  our  con- 
science pure  from  all  that  is  contrary. 

Ch.  lx.  Once  more  let  none  use  that  to  the  detriment 
of  another  which  he  may  himself  have  received  on  con- 
viction of  its  truth;  but  let  everyone,  if  it  be  possible, 
apply  what  he  has  understood  and  known  to  the  benefit  of 
his  neighbor;  if  otherwise,  let  him  relinquish  the  attempt. 
For  it  is  one  thing  voluntarily  to  undertake  the  conflict  for 
immortality,  another  to  compel  others  to  do  so  from  the 
fear  of  punishment. 

These  are  our  words;  and  we  have  enlarged  on  these 
topics  more  than  our  ordinary  clemency  would  have  dic- 
tated, because  we  were  unwilling  to  dissemble  or  be  false 
to  the  true  faith;  and  the  more  so,  since  we  understood 
there  are  some  who  say  that  the  rites  of  the  heathen  tem- 
ples, and  the  power  of  darkness,  have  been  entirely  removed. 
We  should  indeed  have  earnestly  recommended  such  re- 
moval to  all  men,  were  it  not  that  the  rebellious  spirit  of 
those  wicked  errors  still  continues  obviously  fixed  in  the 
minds  of  some,  so  as  to  discourage  the  hope  of  any  general 
restoration  of  mankind  to  the  ways  of  truth. 


407]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       I4g 
B.    PRO-CHRISTIAN  LAWS 

1.   Letter  to  Anulinus  Respecting  the  Restoration  of  Property  to 

Christians 

Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  v,  par.  15. 

Copy  of  another  imperial  decree  which  they  issued,  indi- 
cating that  the  grant  was  made  to  the  Catholic  Church  alone. 

Greeting  to  thee,  our  most  esteemed  Anulinus.  It  is  the 
custom  of  our  benevolence,  most  esteemed  Anulinus,  to  will 
that  those  things  which  belong  of  right  to  another,  should 
not  only  be  left  unmolested,  but  should  also  be  restored. 
Wherefore,  it  is  our  will  that  when  thou  receivest  this 
letter,  if  any  such  things  belonged  to  the  Catholic  Church 
of  the  Christians,  in  any  city  or  other  place,  but  are  now 
held  by  citizens  or  any  others,  thou  shalt  cause  them  to  be 
restored  immediately  to  the  said  churches.  For  we  have 
already  determined  that  those  things  which  these  same 
churches  formerly  possessed  shall  be  restored  to  them. 
Since  therefore  thy  devotedness  perceives  that  this  com- 
mand of  ours  is  most  explicit,  do  thou  make  haste  to  re- 
store to  them,  as  quickly  as  possible,  everything  which  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  said  churches, — whether  gardens  or 
buildings,  or  whatever  they  may  be, — that  we  may  learn 
that  thou  hast  obeyed  this  decree  of  ours  most  carefully. 
Farewell,  thou  most  esteemed  and  beloved  Anulinus.1 

1  Anulinus  was  pro-consul  of  the  province  of  Africa  whose  chief  city, 
Carthage,  had  a  large  Christian  population.  Probably  this  communi- 
cation was  sent  shortly  after  the  edict  of  Milan,  since  it  concerns 
practical  questions  touching  the  property  of  the  churches.  Eusebius 
in  the  title  of  the  chapter  calls  the  document  "Copy  of  another  im- 
perial decree  which  they  issued,  indicating  that  the  Grant  was  made  to 
the  Catholic  Church  alone."  McGiffert  in  a  note  points  out  that 
there  is  no  indication  in  the  text  itself  that  the  phrase  "  Catholic 
Church  "  was  used  in  any  but  a  general  sense,  or  that  the  schismatics 
were  to  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  the  provisions  of  the  law. 


I50  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [408 

2.  Copy  of  an  Imperial  Epistle  in  which  Money  is  Granted  to  the 

Churches. 

Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  vi.1 

Constantine  Augustus  to  Caecilianus,2  bishop  of  Car- 
thage. 

Since  it  is  our  pleasure  that  something  should  be  granted 
in  all  the  provinces  of  Africa  and  Numidia  and  Mauritania 
to  certain  ministers  of  the  legitimate  and  most  holy  Catholic 
religion,  to  defray  their  expenses,  I  have  written  to  Ursus, 
the  illustrious  finance  minister  of  Africa,  and  have  directed 
him  to  make  provision  to  pay  to  thy  firmness  300  folles.3 
Do  thou,  therefore,  when  thou  hast  received  the  above  sum 
of  money,  command  that  it  be  distributed  among  all  those 
mentioned  above,  according  to  the  brief  sent  to  thee  by 
Hosius.*  But  if  thou  shouldst  find  that  anything  is  want- 
ing for  the  fulfilment  of  this  purpose  of  mine  in  regard  to 
all  of  them,  thou  shalt  demand  without  hesitation  from 
Heracleides,  our  treasurer,  whatever  thou  findest  to  be  nec- 
essary. For  I  commanded  him  when  he  was  present  that  if 
thy  firmness  should  ask  him  for  any  money,  he  should  see 
to  it  that  it  be  paid  without  delay.  And  since  I  have  learned 
that  some  men  of  unsettled  mind  wish  to  turn  the  people 
of  the  most  holy  and  Catholic  Church  by  a  certain  method 

1  For  discussion  on  the  title  of  this  chapter  v.  McGiffert*  note  1,  to 
ch.  v. 

*  Caecilianus  as  an  archdeacon  had  been  identified  with  the  anti- 
Donatists. 

3  An  uncertain  sum,  perhaps  equal  to  $90,000,  but  there  is  no  way  of 
being  positive.  See  Petavius'  essay  in  Dindorf's  edition  of  Epiphanius, 
vol.  iv,  pp.  109  et  seq. 

Probably  the  famous  Bishop  of  Cordova  in  Spain,  for  many  years 
an  influential  advisor  of  Constantine.  He  was  conspicuous  in  all  the 
great  controversies  of  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century;  died  about 
360. 


40o]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       IgI 

of  shameful  corruption,1  do  thou  know  that  I  gave  com- 
mand to  Anulinus,  the  proconsul,  and  also  to  Patricius,  vicar 
of  the  prefects,  when  they  were  present,  that  they  should 
give  proper  attention  not  only  to  other  matters  but  also 
above  all  to  this,  and  that  they  should  not  overlook  such  a 
thing  when  it  happened.  Wherefore,  if  thou  shouldst  see 
any  such  men  continuing  in  this  madness,  do  thou  without 
delay,  go  to  the  above-mentioned  judges,  and  report  the 
matter  to  them ;  that  they  may  correct  them  as  I  commanded 
them  when  they  were  present.  The  divinity  of  the  great 
God  protect  thee  for  many  years. s 

3.  Exemption  of  the  Clergy. 

Eus.,  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  vii. 

Copy  of  an  epistle  in  which  the  emperor  commands  that 
the  rulers  of  the  churches  be  exempted  from  all  political 
duties. 

Greeting  to  thee,  our  most  esteemed  Anulinus.  Since  it 
appears  from  many  circumstances  that  when  that  religion 
is  despised,  in  which  is  preserved  the  chief  reverence  for 
the  most  holy  celestial  Power,  great  dangers  are  brought 
upon  public  affairs;  but  that  when  legally  adopted  and  ob- 
served it  affords  the  most  signal  prosperity  to  the  Roman 
name  and  remarkable  felicity  to  all  the  affairs  of  men, 
through  the  divine  beneficence — it  has  seemed  good  to  me, 
most  esteemed  Anulinus,  that  those  men  who  give  their  ser- 
vices with  due  sanctity,  and  with  constant  observance  of 
this  law,  to  the  worship  of  the  divine  religion,  should  re- 

1  McGiffert  thinks  this   a  reference  to  the   Donatists. 

*  Here  the  State  begins  to  subsidize  the  Christian  clergy  and  hence 
to  put  them  in  the  same  financial  relation  to  the  Government  as  the 
pagan  priesthoods.  From  this  time  voluntary  contributions  fell  into 
gradual  disuse  and  the  clergy  depended  for  their  maintenance,  not 
upon  the  offerings  of  the  faithful,  but  the  government  stipends. 


I52  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4io 

ceive  recompense  for  their  labors.  Wherefore  it  is  my 
will  that  those  within  the  provinces  intrusted  to  thee,  in  the 
catholic  Church  over  which  Caecilianus  presides,  who  give 
their  services  to  this  holy  religion,  and  who  are  commonly 
called  clergymen,  be  entirely  exempted  from  all  public 
duties,  that  they  may  not  by  any  error  or  any  sacrilegious 
negligence  be  drawn  away  from  the  services  due  to  the 
Deity,  but  may  devote  themselves  without  any  hindrance  to 
their  own  law.  For  it  seems  that  when  they  show  greatest 
reverence  to  the  Deity,  the  greatest  benefits  accrue  to  the 
state.    Farewell,  our  most  esteemed  and  beloved  Anulinus.1 

4.  Catholic  Clergy  exempt  from  Certain  Civic  Duties. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  i.     313  (?),  Oct.  31. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus.  We  have  learned 
that  the  clergy  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  so  harrassed  by  a 
faction  of  heretics  as  to  be  burdened  with  nominations  to 
office  and  common  public  business,  contrary  to  the  exemp- 
tions granted  to  them.  Wherefore,  it  is  ordered  that  if 
your  gravity  should  find  anyone  thus  annoyed,  another 
man  is  to  be  substituted  for  him,  and  from  henceforth, 
men  of  the  religion  above  mentioned  are  to  be  protected 
from  wrongs  of  this  kind.2  Given  the  thirty-first  of  Octo- 
ber, in  the  third  consulships  of  Augustus  Constantine  and 
Licinius.3 

1  This  exemption  had  long  been  enjoyed  by  the  heathen  priesthoods 
and  some  of  the  learned  professions.  The  heavy  expense  attendant 
upon  public  offices  in  the  later  Roman  empire  made  them  an  intolerable 
burden  to  all  but  the  very  rich  or  ambitious. 

2  Godefroy  thinks  this  was  addressed  to  Anulinus,  proconsul  of 
Africa,  and  is  the  same  letter  found  in  Eus.,  H.  E,,  bk.  x,  ch.  7; 
Mommsen  disagrees  with  Godefroy. 

*  Mommsen  believes  that  the  correct  reading  is :  the  Augustus  Con- 
stantine being  consul  for  the  fifth  time  when  Licinius  the  Caesar 
was  also  consul. 


4i  i  J       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       ^3 

5.  The  Catholic  Church  freed  from  Tribute.  ^ 

C.  Th.,  xi,  1,  1 ;  315  June  17  [360,  Jan.  18].1 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus,  to  Proclianus. 
Except  our  private  property  and  the  Catholic  churches,  and 
the  household  of  Eusebius  of  distinguished  memory,  the 
ex-consul  and  ex-master  of  the  cavalry  and  infantry,  and 
the  household  of  Arsaces,  the  king  of  the  Armenians,  no 
one  by  our  order  shall  enjoy  special  advantages  of  family 
property.  For  Ditianus,  a  distinguished  man  and  a  patri- 
cian, who  had  formerly  obtained  this  favor,  has  requested 
that  he  be  deprived  of  this,  with  as  much  insistance,  as  that 
with  which  others  are  wont  to  request  it.  Therefore  all 
must  pay  whatever  is  charged  against  them  in  the  assess- 
ments imposed  by  our  authority  but  shall  be  pressed  for 
no  more.  And  if  any  vicar  or  governor  of  a  province 
thinks  that  allowance  should  be  made  to  any  man,  he  shall 
be  compelled  to  pay  from  his  own  property  what  he  has 
remitted  to  the  other.  Given  the  seventeenth  of  June,  at 
Constantinople,  in  the  fourth  consulships  of  Constantine 
Augustus  and  Licinius. 

6.  Clergymen  freed  from  Financial  Burdens. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  2.    319,  Oct.  21. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  to  Octavianus,  the  Corrector 
of  Lucania,  and  of  the  Bruttii.2 

Those  who  conduct  the  religious  services  of  divine  wor- 
ship,— that  is, — those  who  are  called  clergymen, — shall  be 
freed  from  all  financial  contributions  whatsoever  that  they 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  x,  16,  4.  See  Mommsen's  note  to  this  law.  From  the 
persons  referred  to  in  the  text,  he  is  inclined  to  think  this  a  law  of 
Constantine. 

1  Inhabitants  of  the  southern  part  of  Italy. 


154  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4I2 

may  not  be  called  away  from  their  sacred  duties  *  by  the 
sacrilegious  malice  of  certain  persons.2 

*/  7.  The  Church  Allowed  to  Receive  Bequests. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  4.    321,  July  3. 

The  same  Augustus  to  the  People. 

Every  man,  when  dying,  shall  have  the  right  to  bequeath 
as  much  of  his  property  as  he  desires  to  the  holy  and  ven- 
erable Catholic  Church.  And  such  wills  are  not  to  be 
broken.3 

Given  the  third  of  July,  at  Rome  in  the  second  consul- 
ship of  the  Caesars,  Crispus  and  Constantine. 

V  8.  Christian  Priests  to  have  the  Right  of  Manumitting  Slaves. 

C.  J.,  i,  13,  1.     June  8,  316. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus  to  Bishop  Protogenes. 

It  has  long  been  allowed  that  masters  may  within  the 
Catholic  Church  grant  freedom  to  their  slaves,  if  they  dot 
it  in  the  sight  of  the  people  and  in  the  presence  of  Chris- 
tian priests,  so  that  to  preserve  the  memory  of  the  deed  a 
paper  may  be  drawn  up  as  record  which  they  may  sign  as 
witnesses.     Therefore,  you  also  may  deservedly  grant  and 

1  This  did  for  these  provinces  what  an  earlier  letter  did  for  Africa. 
See  H.  E.,  bk.  x,  ch.  vi ;  cf.  Soz.,  op.  tit.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ix,  "Constantine  ex- 
empted the  clergy  everywhere  from  taxation." 

*  Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  7,  Feb.  5,  330,  in  which  clergymen  of  various 
grades  were  freed  from  curial  burdens.  For  the  laws  of  320  and  326, 
which  perscribed  what  men  were  permitted  to  become  clergymen,  vide 
C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  3  and  6. 

3  Godefroy  comments  that  up  to  the  time  of  Constantine,  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  like  the  Jewish  corporations,  had  not  been  granted  the 
privilege  of  inheriting  property  bequeathed  in  wills.  Nevertheless, 
between  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  who  gave  such  privilege  to  cer- 
tain colleges  and  corporations,  and  the  accession  of  Constantine,  the 
Church,  from  time  to  time,  did  enjoy  testamentary  gifts.  After  312, 
undoubtedly,  wealth  flowed  into  the  Church,  so  that  actually  this 
edict  legalizes  what  had  been  certainly  permitted  for  some  nine  years. 


4i3]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       155 

allow  freedom,  by  whatever  arrangement  pleases  anyone 
of  you,  provided  only  there  be  clear  testimony  to  your  in- 
tention. Given  the  eighth  of  June  in  the  consulships  of 
Sabinus  and  Rufinus. 

9.  Clergy  to  have  the  Right  to  Manumit  Slaves.  • 

C.  Th.,  iv,  7,  I.    321,  April  18.1 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus  to  Bishop  Hosius. 

Those  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church  who  in  the  spirit  of  re- 
ligion have  given  merited  freedom  to  their  slaves,  seem  to 
have  done  this  in  the  same  way  that  Roman  citizenship  is 
customarily  given  at  the  conclusion  of  solemn  rites;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  they  did  this  in  the  presence  of 
bishops.  But  we  allow  furthermore  to  the  clergy  that 
wherever  they  give  the  full  fruits  of  liberty,  not  only  by 
granting  freedom  to  their  slaves  in  Church  and  before  re- 
ligious people  but  even  by  enfranchising  them  in  their  last 
will,  or  by  orally  ordering  it  to  be  given, — such  liberty 
shall  take  effect  from  the  day  of  the  publishing  of  the  wish, 
without  any  legal  witness  or  agent. 

10.  Episcopal  Jurisdiction.*^ 

C.  Th.,  i,  27,  1.  .  .  .  June  23,  318? 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus.  A  judge  must  ob- 
serve with  care,  that  if  a  case  is  appealed  to  an  episcopal 
court,  he  shall  allow  the  proceedings  to  be  stopped,  and  if 
any  one  desires  to  transfer  his  case  to  the  Christian  law 
and  to  accept  its  judgment,  he  shall  be  permitted,  even  if 
the  case  has  been  already  begun  before  the  judge;  and 
whatever  is  decreed  by  them  (i.  e.,  the  bishops)  shall  be 
held  as  sacred ;  with  this  provision  however,  that  it  shall  not 
be  carried  so  far  that  one  of  the  litigants  shall  go  to  the 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  13,  2. 


I56  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4^ 

above-mentioned  hall  of  justice,  and  report  its  decision. 
For  a  judge  ought  [to  hear  both  parties  x]  in  person  and 
to  have  the  settlement  of  the  entire  case,  so  that  he  may 
pronounce  when  everything  has  been  offered  for  approval. 
Given  the  twenty-third  of  June  at  Constantinople  .  .  . 
in  the  consulship  of  the  Augustus  and  Crispus  the  Caesar. 

%/ll.  Bishops'  Powers  as  Judges  and  Witnesses. 

C.  S.,  i.    333,  May  5. 

The  Emperor  Constantine,  Augustus,  to  Ablabius,  the 
pretorian  prefect.  We  are  considerably  surprised  that 
your  gravity,  which  is  replete  with  justice  and  blameless 
religion,  has  wished  to  inquire  of  our  clemency,  what  our 
moderation  decreed  formerly  concerning  the  decisions  of 
bishops  or  what  we  may  now  desire  to  be  observed,  dearest 
and  most  affectionate  Ablabius.  And  so  because  you  have 
desired  to  be  instructed  by  us,  we  set  down  again  for  our 
prosperous  empire  the  order  of  the  law  which  has  been  al- 
ready promulgated.  For  indeed,  we  have  commanded,  as 
the  provisions  of  our  edict  set  forth,  that  episcopal  decisions 
rendered  in  any  kind  of  case,  shall  always  be  maintained 
inviolate  and  unaltered  without  distinction  as  to  their  date; 
namely,  that  whatever  may  be  settled  by  a  sentence  of 
bishops  shall  ever  be  held  as  sacred  and  venerable.  And 
so  if  a  judgment  is  given  by  bishops  in  a  case  between 
minors  or  adults,  we  wish  it  to  be  carried  out  by  you,  who 
hold  the  highest  position  in  the  courts,  and  by  all  the  other 
judges.  Consequently,  if  anyone  is  involved  in  a  law  suit, 
whether  as  a  defendant  or  plaintiff,  whether  at  the  begin- 

1  Supplied  according  to  the  reading  of  Mommsen's  note.  This  law 
was  found  at  the  end  of  the  Constitutiones  Sirmondianae,  and  is 
there,  number  17,  in  the  Haenel  edition.  It  owes  its  present  place  in 
the  Mommsen  edition  because  it  bore  the  inscription  lex  de  Theo- 
dosiano  sub  titulo  xxvii  de  episcopale  definitione.  Mommsen  believe* 
it  was  probably  drawn  up  in  318. 


4Ie]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF.  CONSTANTINE       157 

ning  of  the  law  suit  or  after  the  passage  of  time,  whether 
during  the  trial  of  the  case,  or  when  judgment  has  begun 
to  be  given,  chooses  the  sentence  of  a  bishop  of  the  holy 
law,  thither,  to  the  bishop,  let  the  litigants  be  directed, 
without  any  delay,  even  if  the  other  party  resist.  For  the 
authority  of  the  sacrosanct  religion  searches  into,  and 
makes  public,  many  things  which  the  captious  limitations 
of  legal  custom  do  not  permit  to  be  brought  out  in  ordinary 
trials.  So  all  cases  which  come  under  the  pretorian  or 
the  civil  law,  whenever  settled  by  the  decision  of  bishops 
shall  be  maintained  by  unchanging  law ;  neither  shall  a  case 
which  has  been  decided  by  the  sentence  of  bishops  be  sub- 
ject to  further  review.  All  testimony  given,  even  by  a 
single  bishop,  shall  be  accepted  without  hesitation,  by  every 
judge,  neither  shall  any  other  witness  be  heard,  when  the 
testimony  of  a  bishop  is  brought  forward  by  either  party. 
For  that  is  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  truth,  that  is  un- 
corrupted,  which  is  spoken  by  a  holy  man,  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  an  upright  mind.  This  we  have  already  decided 
by  a  wholesome  decree,  this  we  now  confirm  by  perpetual 
law,  destroying  the  pernicious  seeds  of  litigation,  that  mis- 
erable men  entangled  in  long  and  well-nigh  continuous 
snares  of  law  suits,  may  be  set  free  at  an  early  date  from 
iniquitous  claims  or  monstrous  cupidity.  So,  whatever  our 
clemency  has  decreed,  and  has  now  comprised  in  this  law, 
concerning'  the  sentences  of  bishops,  we  wish  your  gravity, 
and  the  rest  to  observe  for  the  advantage  of  all.  Given  the 
fifth  of  May,  at  Constantinople,  in  the  consulships  of  Dal- 
matius  and  Zenofilus.1 

1  Professor  Munroe  Smith  authorizes  the  writer  to  cite  him  as  hold- 
ing that  the  constitutions  which  deal  with  the  civil  jurisdiction  of 
Christian  bishops  and  which  are  attributed  to  Constantine  cannot  well 
be  accepted  as  genuine  unless  it  be  assumed  that  these  laws  were  meant 
to  operate  only  against  Christians  who  brought  suit  in  the  secular 
courts.     It  is  his  opinion  that  this  assumption  is  justifiable,  and  that 


158  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4I6 

12.  The  Day  of  the  Sun  a  Time  for  Rest. 
C.  J.,  iii,  12,  2.     March  3,  321. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus,  to  Helpidus.  All 
judges  and  city  folk  and  all  craftsmen  shall  rest  on  the  ven- 
erated day  of  the  sun.  Country  people,  however,  may 
freely,  and  according  to  their  own  pleasure,  attend  to  the 
cultivation  of  their  land,  since  it  frequently  happens  that 
no  other  day  is  so  opportune  for  sowing  the  grain  in  the 
furrows,  or  setting  out  the  vines  in  the  ditches ;  so  that  the 
advantage  of  a  favorable  moment  granted  by  providence 
may  not  be  lost.  Published  the  third  of  March  in  the  sec- 
ond consulships  of  Crispus  and  Constantine. 

13.  Manumissions  Permitted  on  the  Day  of  the  Sun. 
C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  1.    321,  July  1. 

the  laws  would  have  been  construed,  at  the  time,  in  this  narrower  sense. 
The  first  Sirmondian  constitution,  in  particular,  seems  to  have  been 
drawn  by  a  Christian  ecclesiastic  who  was  not  a  lawyer,  and  his  object 
was  to  regularize  the  brief-established  Christian  practice  of  submitting 
controversies  between  Christians  to  the  ecclesiastic  determination.  To 
compel  a  pagan  plaintiff,  on  the  demand  of  a  Christian  defendant,  to 
transfer  his  suit  to  the  episcopal  tribunal,  lay  wholly  outside  of  this 
object;  and  to  have  imposed  upon  pagan  litigants  such  compulsion 
would  have  been  regarded  by  them  as  an  affront  and  would  have  been 
quite  inconsistent  with  Constantine's  general  policy.  Any  one  versed 
in  legal  hermeneutics,  and  particularly  any  one  familiar  with  the  re- 
gard paid  by  Roman  lawyers  to  the  voluntas  legis  and  the  freedom 
with  which  they  read  into  laws  such  exceptions  as  seemed  to  be 
demanded  by  their  general  purpose  and  spirit,  can  have  little  doubt 
that  these  laws  of  Constantine  would  have  been  construed  in  the  sense 
here  indicated. 

Also  Soz.,  op.  cit.,  bk.  i,  ch.  ix.  Constantine  "  permitted  litigants  to 
appeal  to  the  decision  of  the  bishops  if  they  preferred  them  to  the* 
state  rulers.  He  enacted  that  their  decree  should  be  valid  and  as  far 
superior  to  that  of  other  judges  as  if  pronounced  by  the  emperor  him- 
self; that  the  governors  and  subordinate  military  officers  should  see 
to  the  execution  of  these  decrees ;  and  that  the  definitions  made  by 
synods  should  be  irreversible."     Cf.  C.  Th.,  i,  27,  1. 


Aiy]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       159 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus,  to  Helpidus.1 
As  it  has  seemed  most  unworthy  that  the  day  of  the  sun, 
famous  by  its  venerable  character,  should  be  filled  with  the 
wrangles  of  legal  disputes  and  obnoxious  contentions  of 
parties,  so  it  is  grateful  and  pleasant  on  that  day  to  carry 
out  those  things  which  are  especially  desired.  And  there- 
fore on  the  festive  day  all  shall  have  the  right  of  emanci- 
pating and  manumitting,  and  in  connection  with  these 
things  public  business  shall  not  be  prohibited.  Given  the 
third  of  July,  at  Caralis,2  in  the  second  consulships  of  the 
Caesars  Crispus  and  Constantine.3 

14.  Christians  Exempt  from  Making  Lustral  Sacrifices. 

Th.  C.j  xvi,  2,  5.  323,  May  ?  25.  Constantine  to  Helpi- 
dius.4 

Whereas  we  have  learned  that  certain  ecclesiastics  and 
other  persons  devoted  to  the  Catholic  faith  have  been  forced 
by  men  of  different  religions  to  make  lustral  sacrifice;  by 
this  decree  we  ordain  that  anyone  who  believes  that  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  most  holy  law  should  be  compelled  to  take 
part  in  the  rite  of  another  religion,  if  his  position  allow  of 

1  Other  edicts  were  addressed  to  him.  According  to  Godefroy,  vol.  i, 
p.  118,  he  was  Praeses  Sardiniae.  Mommsen  suggests  that  perhaps 
he  was  acting  Urban  Prefect.  Jerome  refers  to  one  of  the  name  as 
Praefectus  Praetorio. 

8  Chief  city  of  Sardinia. 

3  Cf.  C.  J.,  iii-12,  1.  Also  Eus.,  V.  C.,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xviii.  "  He  ordained 
too,  that  one  day  should  be  regarded  as  a  special  occasion  for  prayer; 
I  mean  that  which  is  truly  the  first  and  chief  of  all — the  day  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour." 

*  Godefroy,  vol.  iii,  p.  27,  note,  believes  Helpidius  was  acting  pre- 
torian  prefect.  Cf.  Mansi,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Nova  et  Amplissima 
Collectio,  vol.  iii,  pp.  515  et  seq.  Ancyranum  Concilium,  Canon  iv, 
"  De  his  qui  vi  sacrificarunt  et  praeterea  ad  idola  pransi  sunt,"  etc. 
Godefroy  believes  these  lustral  sacrifices  were  without  question  not 
private  but  public  and  were  probably  connected  with  the  procession 
of  the  Ambarvales  or  Amburbium. 


^o  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4I8 

it,  shall  be  publicly  beaten  with  rods.  But  if  his  rank  pro- 
tect him  from  such  punishment,  he  shall  suffer  the  severest 
penalty  which  can  be  inflicted  by  the  State.  Given  on  the 
twenty-fifth  of  May  in  the  consulships  of  Severus  and  Ru- 
finus  at  Sirmium. 

15.  Churches  Enlarged  and  Built  at  the  Government's  Expense. 

Constantine's  letter  to  Eusebius  and  other  bishops  re- 
specting the  building  of  churches  and  instructions  to  repair 
the  old  and  erect  new  ones  on  a  large  scale,  with  the  aid  of 
the  Provincial  Governors.  V.  C,  bk.  ii,  ch.  xlvi,  N.  P. 
N.  F. 

Victor  Constantinus,  Maximus  Augustus,  to  Eusebius. 

Forasmuch  as  the  unholy  and  wilful  rule  of  tyranny 
has  persecuted  the  servants  of  our  Saviour  until  this  present 
time,  I  believe  and  have  fully  satisfied  myself,  best  beloved 
brother,  that  the  buildings  belonging  to  all  the  churches 
have  either  become  ruinous  through  actual  neglect  or  have 
received  inadequate  attention  from  the  dread  of  the  violent 
spirit  of  the  times. 

But  now  that  liberty  is  restored,  and  that  serpent  driven 
from  the  administration  of  public  affairs  by  the  providence 
of  the  Supreme  God,  and  our  instrumentality,  we  trust  that 
all  can  see  the  efficacy  of  the  Divine  power,  and  that  they 
who  through  fear  of  persecution  or  through  unbelief  have 
fallen  into  any  errors,  will  now  acknowledge  the  true  God, 
and  adopt  in  future  that  course  in  life  which  is  according 
to  truth  and  rectitude.  With  respect,  therefore,  to  the 
churches  over  which  you  yourself  preside,  as  well  as  the 
bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  of  other  churches  with 
whom  you  are  acquainted,  do  you  admonish  all  to  be  zealous 
in  their  attention  to  the  buildings  of  the  churches,  and  either 
to  repair  or  enlarge  those  which  at  present  exist,  or  in  cases 
of  necessity,  to  erect  new  ones.  We  also  empower  you,  and 
the  others  through  you,  to  demand  what  is  needful  for  the 


4!9]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       ifa 

work,  both  from  the  provincial  governors  and  from  th6 
Praetorian  Praefect.  For  they  have  received  instructions 
to  be  most  diligent  in  obeyance  to  your  Holiness's  orders. 
God  preserve  you,  beloved  brother.1 

B.    HUMANITARIAN  LAWS 

1.  Criminals  no  Longer  to  be  Gladiators,  v 

C.  Th.,  xv,  12,  i.    325,  Oct.  1. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus,  to  Maximus,2  pre- 
torian  prefect. 

Bloody  shows  are  not  pleasing  during  civic  peace  and  do- 
mestic quiet.  Therefore  we  prohibit  altogether  those  from 
being  gladiators  who  perhaps  on  account  of  crime  used  to 
merit  this  condition  and  sentence.  Rather  you  will  have 
them  serve  in  the  mines  that  they  will  pay  without  blood 
the  penalties  of  their  crimes. 

Given  at  Berytus,3  the  first  of  October,  in  the  consulships 
of  Paulinus  and  Julianus. 

2.  Criminals  not  to  be  Branded  in  the  Face. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  40,  2.    315  (316?),  March  21. 

The  same  Augustus  to  Eumelius.4    If  any  one,  on  account 

1  Eus.  says,  "  A  copy  of  this  charge  was  transmitted  throughout  all 
the  provinces  to  the  bishops  of  the  several  churches :  the  provincial 
governors  received  directions  accordingly,  and  the  imperial  statute 
was  speedily  carried  into  effect." 

1  Vicar  of  the  Orient. 

*  Beirut  in  Syria. 

Cf.  V.  C,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xxv;  also  Soz.,  bk.  i,  ch.  viii.  The  provisions 
certainly  did  not  extend  to  Italy  though  they  are  expressed  in  gen- 
eral terms,  for  in  Constantius'  and  Honorius'  codes  there  are  laws 
regulating  gladiatorial  performances  in  Rome.  Cf.  Godefroy,  vol.  iii, 
P-  397.  note;  cf.  C.  J.,  xi,  44,  1.  Imp.  Constantinus  A.  Maximo  pp. 
Cruenta  spectacula  in  otia  civili  et  domestica  quieta  non  placent,  qua- 
propter  omnino  gladiatores  esse  prohibemus.  PP.  Beryto  k.  Oct. 
Paulino  et  Juliano  conss.  [a.  325].     Cf.  C.  Th.,  xv,  12,  2. 

4  Vicar  of  Africa. 


!62  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [420 

of  the  crimes  in  which  he  is  detected,  should  be  condemned 
to  the  arena  or  the  mines,  by  no  means  let  him  be  branded 
in  the  face,  although  both  on  his  hands  and  legs  the  penalty 
of  his  condemnation  may  be  marked  in  a  single  brand; 
while  the  face  which  is  formed  in  the  likeness  of  heavenly 
beauty  shall  not  be  dishonored.1 

Given  the  twenty-first  of  March,  at  Cavillunum,  in  the 
fourth  consulates  of  Constantine,  the  Augustus,  and  Lici- 
nius. 

C.    CONCERNING  DIVINATION  AND  MAGIC 
1.  Private  Divination  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  1.     Feb.  1  (Sept.  .  .  .   ),  319. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Augustus  to  Maximus.2 

No  soothsayer  shall  cross  another's  threshold  and  for  no 
other  reason  but  that  the  ancient  friendship  for  men  of  this 
sort  ought  to  be  checked.  That  haruspex  who  goes  to  an- 
other man's  house  ought  to  be  burned;  and  the  man  who 
persuaded  or  bribed  him  to  come,  should  surfer  the  confisca- 
tion of  his  property  and  should  be  banished  to  an  island. 
For  if  they  are  eager  to  maintain  this  superstition,  they  will 
be  ready  publicly  to  celebrate  their  peculiar  rite. 

Moreover  the  reporter  of  this  crime  we  consider  not  a 
delator  but  rather  worthy  of  reward. 

Set  forth  the  first  of  February  at  Rome,  in  the  fifth  con- 
sulate of  the  Augustus  Constantine  when  Licinius  the 
Caesar  was  also  consul.3 

1  Cf.  Sex  Aur.  Victor,  De  Caes.,  xli,  for  the  abolition  of  the  punish- 
ments of  crucifixion  and  the  breaking  of  legs.  For  references  to  other 
humanitarian  laws  of  Constantine,  see  supra,  pp.  75-76. 

3  Cf.  C.  J.,  ix,  18,  3- 
Prefect  of  the  City  of  Rome. 

Here  it  is  patent  that  public  divination  is  in  no  way  interfered 
with;  the  ban  touches  only  those  who  have  to  do  with  private  sooth- 
saying. 

3Cf.  C.  Th.,  xi,  36,  1,  where  the  emperor  denies  convicted  magicians 
the  right  of  appeal. 


42 1 ]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       163 

2.  Private  Soothsaying  Forbidden  but  Public  Divination  Allowed  in 

the  Day  Time. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  2.    May  15,  319. 

The  same  Augustus  to  the  People. 

We  prohibit  all  soothsayers,  priests  of  prophecy,  and 
those  who  are  wont  to  administer  such  rites,  from  entering 
a  private  house,  or,  under  the  guise  of  friendship,  from 
crossing  another's  threshold.  And  if  they  despise  this  law 
penalties  shall  be  meted  out  to  them.  You,  who  think  this 
applies  to  yourselves,  go  to  the  public  altars  and  shrines,  and 
celebrate  your  customary  ceremonies,  for  we  do  not  forbid 
the  full  services  of  ancient  tradition  from  being  conducted 
in  the  day  time.1 

Given  on  the  Ides  of  May,  when  Constantine  the  Augus- 
tus was  Consul  for  the  fifth  time,  and  Licinius  was  Consul 
with  him. 

3.  Malevolent  Magic  Prohibited  but  Beneficial  Magic  Encouraged. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  3.    May  23,  321-4  (317-319). 

The  same  Augustus  and  the  same  Caesar  to  Bassus,  the 
Prefect  of  the  City. 

The  professed  knowledge  of  those  men  should  be  pun- 
ished and  justly  visited  by  the  severest  laws,  who  provide 
themselves  with  magical  arts,  or  work  against  the  welfare 
of  men  and  are  discovered  to  have  turned  pure  minds  to  lust. 

But  the  remedies  sought  for  human  bodies,  or  in  rural 
places,  the  efforts  harmlessly  put  forth  (through  which  no 
one's  well-being  or  reputation  suffers)  in  order  that  storms 
need  not  be  feared  at  the  vintage  season,  nor  the  crop  de- 
stroyed by  a  hailstorm,  are  not  to  be  made  matters  for  legal 

1  Here  not  only  is  private  soothsaying  forbidden  as  in  the  decree  of 
February,  but  evidently  nocturnal  rites  at  the  public  altars  and  shrines 
are  frowned  u~»on,  if  they  have  not  been  actually  prohibited. 


l^  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [422 

complaint.    Such  acts  prevent  the  destruction  of  God's  gifts 
and  man's  labors. 

Given  the  twenty-third  of  May  at  Aquileia  in  the  Consul- 
ship of  Crispus  and  Constantine,  Caesars.1 

4.  Legal  Divination  Permitted. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  1.    Dec.  17,  320-1. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  to  Maximus,2 

If  a  part  of  our  palace,  or  any  other  public  building,  be 
struck  by  lightning,  let  the  customs  of  the  old  religion  be  ob- 
served and  the  haruspices  be  consulted  for  the  meaning  of 
the  omen,  and  let  their  words  be  very  carefully  brought  to- 
gether and  reported  to  us.  Permission  for  the  practice  of 
the  custom  should  also  be  granted  to  others,  provided  that 
no  household  sacrifices  are  made,  for  these  are  specifically 
forbidden.  Know  moreover,  that  the  announcement  and 
explanation  which  is  given  touching  the  striking  by  light- 
ning of  the  amphitheatre  which  you  have  written  Heracli- 
anus,  the  tribune  and  chief  of  the  officials,  has  been  reported 
to  us. 

Given  at  Serdica,  the  seventeenth  of  December,  received 
the  ninth  of  February,  in  the  second  Consulship  of  the  two 
Caesars,  Crispus  and  Constantine. 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  ix,  18,  4. 

There  is  some  dispute  about  the  date  of  this  law.  Crispus  and 
Constantine  were  consuls  together  in  321  and  again  in  324.  Bassus 
appears  to  have  been  Urban  Prefect  from  317-319. 

Here  the  distinction  is  clearly  drawn  between  good  and  bad  magic, 
and  the  former  is  recognized  as  valuable.  This  distinction  was  com- 
monly made  not  only  by  pagan  but  also  by  Christian  minds. 

1  Prefect  of  the  City  of  Rome. 

Godefroy  gives  the  date  of  the  decree  as  321.  The  occasion  of  this 
edict  was  the  striking  by  lightning  of  the  Flavian  amphitheatre.  Legal 
divination  is  here  permitted.  Licenses  are  to  be  granted  for  divination 
— the  only  stipulation  being  that  the  practices  shall  not  be  conducted 
in  private  houses. 


423]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       165 

D.    LAWS  CONCERNING  PAGANISM 

1.  Exemption  for  Flamen,  Priest  and  Magistrate. 

C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  21.    335,  Aug.  4. 

The  same  Augustus  to  Felix,  pretorian  prefect. 

Since  the  African  curials  have  complained  that  members 
of  their  corporation  after  receiving  the  honor  of  a  flamen 
and  priest  or  magistrate  were  compelled  to  be  superinten- 
dents of  inns  (praepositos  mansionum)1  an  office  which  in 
every  curia  is  usually  filled  by  men  of  lower  merit  and 
rank;  we  decree  that  no  man  decorated  with  the  aforesaid 
honors  shall  be  forced  to  perform  the  above  service  that  no 
injustice  may  seem  to  be  done  by  our  decision. 

Given  the  fourth  of  August  at  Viminacio,  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Constantius  and  Albinus. 

2.  Exemptions  for  Priests  and  Perpetual  Flamens. 

C.  Th.,  xii,  5,  2.    337,  May2ist. 

The  same  Augustus  to  the  Council  of  the  Province  of 
Africa. 

We  decree  that  priests  and  perpetual  flamens  and  even  the 
duumviri  are  to  be  immune  from  offices  of  superintendents 
and  lower  officials.  In  order  that  this  may  be  confirmed  by 
everlasting  observation,  we  order  this  law  to  be  cut  in 
bronze  tablets  and  published. 

Set  forth  the  twenty-first  of  May  at  Carthage. 

Felicianus  and  Tetianus  being  Consuls. 

1  These  houses  were  maintained  by  the  government  to  provide  ac- 
commodation and  supplies  for  persons  traveling  on  public  business. 
The  praepositi  were  therefore  men  set  in  charge  of  these  establish- 
ments, whose  business  it  was  to  arrange  for  the  comfort  of  the 
guests.  This  position  is  not  to  be  confused  with  that  of  praepositus 
horreorum,  or  praepositus  annonarum.  From  this  law  it  seems  the 
position  of  praepositus  mansionum  was  a  position  inferior  in  dignity 
to  those  of  flamens,  priests  or  magistrates.  Cf.  Godefroy,  vol.  iii,. 
pp.  364-365. 


t66  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [424 

3.  Destruction  of  the  Temple  at  Mamre. 

Eus.,  V.  C,  bk.  iii,  chs.  lii-liii,  in  N.  P.  N.  F. 

Victor  Constantinus,  Maximus  Augustus,  to  Macarius 
and  the  rest  of  the  Bishops  in  Palestine. 

One  benefit,  and  that  of  no  ordinary  importance,  has  been 
conferred  on  us  by  my  truly  pious  Mother-in-law,  in  that 
she  has  made  known  to  us  by  letter  that  abandoned  folly  of 
impious  men  which  has  hitherto  escaped  detection  by  you: 
so  that  the  criminal  conduct  thus  overlooked  may  now 
through  our  means  obtain  fitting  correction  and  remedy.  .  . 

She  assures  me,  then,  that  the  place  which  takes  its  name 
from  the  oak  of  Mamre,  where  we  find  that  Abraham  dwelt, 
is  defiled  by  certain  of  the  slaves  of  superstition  in  every 
possible  way.  She  declares  that  idols  which  should  be 
utterly  destroyed  have  been  erected  on  the  site  of  that  tree; 
that  an  altar  is  near  the  spot,  and  that  impure  sacrifices  are 
continually  performed.  Now  since  it  is  evident  that  these 
practices  are  equally  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  our 
times,  and  unworthy  of  the  sanctity  of  the  place  itself,  I 
wish  your  Reverences  to  be  informed  that  the  illustrious 
Count  Acacius,  our  friend,  has  received  instructions  by 
letter  from  me,  to  the  effect  that  every  idol  which  shall  be 
found  in  the  place  above-mentioned  shall  immediately  be  con- 
signed to  the  flames;  that  the  altar  be  utterly  demolished, 
and  that  if  anyone,  after  this  our  mandate,  shall  be  guilty  of 
impiety  of  any  kind  in  this  place,  he  shall  be  visited  with  con- 
dign punishment.  The  place  itself  we  have  directed  to  be 
adorned  with  an  unpolluted  structure,  I  mean  a  church,  in 
order  that  it  may  become  a  fitting  place  of  assembly  for  holy 
men.  Meantime,  should  any  breach  of  these  our  commands 
occur,  it  should  be  made  known  to  our  clemency  without 
the  least  delay  by  letters  from  you,  that  we  may  direct  the 
person  detected  to  be  dealt  with,  as  a  transgressor  of  the  law, 
in  the  severest  manner.     For  you  are  not  ignorant  that  the 


42r]       RELIGIOUS  LEGISLATION  OF  CONSTANTINE       ifry 

Supreme  God  first  appeared  to  Abraham  and  conversed  with 
him  in  that  place.  There  it  was  that  the  observance  of  the 
divine  law  first  began ;  there  first,  the  Saviour  himself,  with 
the  two  angels,  vouchsafed  to  Abraham  a  manifestation  of 
his  presence.  .  .  . 

For  these  reasons,  it  seems  to  me  right  that  this  place 
should  not  only  be  kept  pure  through  your  diligence  from 
all  defilement,  but  restored  also  to  its  pristine  sanctity ;  that 
nothing  hereafter  may  be  done  there  except  the  performance 
of  fitting  service  to  him  who  is  the  Almighty  God  and  our 
Saviour  and  Lord  of  all.  And  this  service  it  is  incumbent 
on  you  to  care  for  with  due  attention,  if  your  Reverences 
be  willing  (and  of  this  I  feel  confident)  to  gratify  my 
wishes,  which  are  especially  interested  in  the  worship  of 
God.    May  he  preserve  you,  beloved  brethren ! 

4.  Rescript  of  Hispellum. 

Orelli-Henzen,  Inscriptionum  latinarum  selectarum  am- 
plissima  collectio,  vol.  iii,  no.  5580. 

The  Emperor  Caesar  Flavianus  Constantinus  Maximus, 
Triumphant  Victor  of  the  Germans,  the  Sarmati  and  Goths, 
Augustus ;  and  Flavianus  Constantinus  and  Flavianus  Juli- 
anus  Constantius  and  Flavianus  Constans. 

Everything  for  which  the  associations  of  the  human  race 
have  regard,  we  include  in  our  thoughtful  care,  but  the 
greatest  need  of  our  forethought  is,  that  every  city  which  is 
distinguished  by  the  beauty  of  its  appearance  as  the  orna- 
ment of  the  provinces  and  the  regions  should  preserve 
not  only  the  ancient  dignity,  but  even  by  the  munificence  of 
our  bounty,  advance  to  a  more  perfect  condition.  There- 
fore, inasmuch  as  you  declare  that  you  have  a  union  with 
Tuscany  of  such  a  character,  that  by  a  rule  of  ancient  cus- 
tom every  year  you  appoint  priests  to  display  at  Volsenii,  a 
city  of  Tuscany,  theatrical  shows  and  gladiatorial  games; 
but  that,  on  account  of  the  mountain  steeps  and  dangerous 


j 68  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [426 

forests  along  the  roads,  you  more  urgently  request  that  aid 
be  granted  to  your  priest,  and  he  be  not  required  to  travel 
to  Volsenii  to  celebrate  these  performances,  but  that  the 
city  which  is  now  called  Hispellum  and  which  you  state  is 
bordering  on  the  Via  Flaminia,  and  adjacent  to  it,  be  en- 
dowed with  our  name  in  which  a  temple  1  of  the  Flavian 
gens  shall  be  built  of  beautiful  workmanship,  to  accord  with 
the  greatness  of  the  title  which  it  bears;  and  that  there  this 
priest  might  display  the  spectacle  both  of  theatrical  shows 
and  gladiatorial  games  which  Umbria  had  been  wont  to  pre- 
sent in  its  yearly  turn,  while  the  custom  of  Tuscany  shall 
remain  as  before,  that  there  the  appointed  priest  at  Volsenii 
shall  continue  the  spectacle  of  the  aforesaid  performances  as 
he  has  been  accustomed  to  do. 

To  this  request  and  desire  of  yours  we  readily  give  our 
consent,  and  grant  the  eternal  word  and  the  venerable  name 
from  our  own  title  to  the  city  of  Hispellum,  namely  that  in 
the  future  the  aforesaid  city  shall  be  called  Flavia  Constans ; 
we  are  willing  that  within  it  a  temple  2  of  Flavia,  that  is,  of 
our  own  gens  may  be  built  of  beautiful  workmanship  as  you 
request  upon  this  condition :  that  the  temple  3  dedicated  to 
our  name  be  not  polluted  with  the  deceit  of  any  contagious 
superstition.  Furthermore,  we  give  you  permission  to  hold 
performances  in  the  aforesaid  city,  namely,  as  has  been 
said  from  time  to  time,  the  solemn  performances  shall  not 
be  abandoned  at  Volsenii,  where  having  originated  through 
the  priests  of  Tuscany,  their  ancient  fame  shall  be  continued, 
so  that  little  loss  come  to  ancient  customs,  and  you,  who 
for  the  afore-mentioned  reasons  are  our  suppliants,  shall 
rejoice  in  receiving  that  for  which  you  have  so  earnestly  en- 
treated. 

1  Templum.  i  Aedes 

*  Aedes 

For  discussion  of  this  rescript  vide  supra,  pp.  100  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  III 
Laws  of  the  Sons  of  Constantine 

Constantine  was  succeeded,  upon  his  death  in  337,  by 
his  three  sons,  among  whom  he  had  divided  his  empire. 
The  early  murder  of  Constantine  II,  left  Constans  and  Con- 
stantius  colleagues  of  the  West  and  the  East.  They  had 
been  educated  as  Christians,  but  they  displayed  few  Chris- 
tian virtues  and  no  brotherly  feeling.  They  had  little  in 
common  except  their  dislike  of  paganism  and  heresy;  and 
even  here  there  was  ground  for  dispute  when  Constantius 
became  converted  to  the  teachings  of  the  Arian  party.  In 
350,  Magnentius,  a  German  commander  of  a  couple  of 
legions,  assumed  the  imperial  purple  at  Autun.  Constans, 
fleeing  into  the  Spanish  provinces,  was  murdered.  His 
brother  carried  on  the  war  with  the  usurper  and  Magnen- 
tius' suicide  in  353  made  him  the  sole  and  undisputed  em- 
peror of  the  Roman  world  until  the  time  of  his  death  eight 
years  later. 

In  principle,  Constantine's  sons  seem  to  have  abandoned 
their  father's  policy  of  religious  toleration,  for  they  ordered 
that  the  temples  be  closed  and  sacrifices  cease.  In  practice, 
these  laws  were  not  generally  carried  out,  and  Constantius 
continued  to  confirm  privileges  and  prerogatives  to  pagan 
priesthoods.  Let  us  glance  at  the  conspicuous  religious 
legislation  of  this  period. 

Many  laws  were  passed  between  337  and  361  confirming 
or  granting  privileges  to  Christians.    A  long  series  of  laws 
exempted  the  clergy  from  contributions  and  curial  exac- 
427]  169 


I70  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [428 

tions.1  Even  the  wives  and  children  of  clergymen  were 
freed  from  financial  burdens.2  Church  lands  also  were  not 
to  be  taxed.3  Bishops  were  to  be  tried  only  in  episcopal 
courts.4  In  the  very  year  of  his  death  Constantius  reassured 
the  Christian  clergy  of  his  protection.5  With  reference  to 
the  pagans  Constantius  issued  laws  commanding  that  tem- 
ples be  closed  and  all  sacrifices  discontinued.6  Some  of  the 
temples  were  evidently  bestowed  upon  Christian  churches  or 
private  individuals.7 

The  harsh  law 8  threatening  with  capital  punishment  anyone 
guilty  of  sacrificing  or  of  worshiping  idols,  appears  never 
to  have  been  carried  out,  as  there  is  no  record  of  any  pagan 

1  C.  Th.,  xiii,  1,  1 ;  xvi,  2,  8,  Aug.,  343;  xvi,  2,  9,  April,  349;  xvi,  2,  10, 
May,  353;  xvi,  2,  11,  February,  354;  xvi,  2,  13,  November,  357;  xvi, 
2,  16,  February,  361. 

*  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  14,  Dec.(?)  357- 

s  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  15,  June,  360.  This  law  provides  however  that  clergy- 
men in  business  must  meet  the  regular  business  taxes. 

4  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  12,  Sep.,  355- 

6  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  16,  Feb.,  361. 

6  Vide  infra,  pp.  175  et  seq,  for  the  texts  of  these  laws.  Also,  Libanius, 
Pro  templis,  p.  75.  "But  when  the  emperor  (Constantius)  came  to 
his  state  or  rather  the  form  of  the  empire  for  the  government  was 
really  in  the  hands  of  others  who  from  the  beginning  had  been  his 
masters,  and  to  whom  he  vouchsafed  equal  power  with  himself;  he 
therefore  being  governed  by  them,  even  when  he  was  emperor,  was; 
led  into  many  wrong  actions,  and  among  others,  to  forbid  sacrifices." 

T  Soz.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  xviii.  "  They  confirmed  the  laws  enacted  by  their 
father,  and  enforced  new  ones  prohibiting  the  offering  of  sacrifice, 
the  worship  of  images,  or  any  other  pagan  observance.  They  com- 
manded that  all  temples,  whether  in  the  city  or  the  country,  should 
be  closed.  Some  of  these  temples  were  presented  to  the  churches 
when  either  the  ground  they  stood  on  or  the  materials  for  building 
were  required."  Cf.  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  bk.  xxii,  ch.  iv.  "  Some 
of  them  had  been  fed  on  the  spoils  of  temples,  had  smelt  out  gain  on 
every  occasion,  and  having  raised  themselves  from  the  lowest  poverty 
to  vast  riches." 
8  Cf.  infra,  p.  177,  for  text  of  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  6. 


42q]  LAWS  OF  THE  SONS  OF  CONSTANTINE  tyi 

suffering  death  for  his  religion.  And  yet  Constantius'  laws 
did  not  crush  paganism.  Firmicus  Maternus  *  saw  temples 
standing  and  sacrifices  steaming  from  the  altars.  Alex- 
andria was  full  of  temples  where  worship  went  on  without 
check.2  Sozomen  reports  that  finally  an  edict  was  published 
to  put  a  stop  to  this.3  In  359,  according  to  Ammianus, 
when  Rome 

was  fearing  distress  from  an  impending  scarcity  of  corn;  and 
the  violence  of  the  common  people  infuriated  by  the  expecta- 
tion of  that  worst  of  all  evils,  was  vented  upon  Tertullus,  who 
at  that  time  was  prefect  of  the  city.  .  .  .  And  soon  by  the 
favor  of  the  deity  who  has  watched  over  the  growth  of  Rome 
from  its  first  origin,  and  who  promised  that  it  should  last  for- 
ever, while  Tertullus  was  at  Ostia  sacrificing  in  the  temple  of 
Castor  and  Pollux,  the  sea  became  calm,  the  wind  changed  to 
a  gentle  south-east  breeze,  and  the  ships  in  full  sail  entered  the 
port  laden  with  corn  to  fill  the  granaries. 4 

The  Roman  Calendar  of  354s  cites  pagan  festivals  as  though 
they  were  still  observed ;  and  during  this  period  pontiffs  were 
still  protectors  of  the  monuments  of  the  dead  and  priest- 
hoods had  their  prerogatives  assured  to  them.6     Constantius 

1  De  errore  profanarum  religionnm. 

1  Vetus  orbis  descriptio,  ed.  Godefroy,  p.  17-  Amm.  Marc,  bk.  xix, 
ch.  xii,  shows  that  the  oracle  of  Abydon  was  still  active  in  359. 

s  Bk.  iv,  ch.  x.  "  The  following  day  edicts  were  transmitted  to  the 
governors  from  the  emperor,  by  which  it  was  commanded  that  the 
pagans  were  not  to  be  permitted  to  assemble  in  the  temples  to  per- 
form their  usual  ceremonies,  nor  to  celebrate  their  festival;  and  thus 
was  abolished  the  most  solemn  and  magnificent  feast  which  the  pagans 
had  retained." 

4  Amm.  Marc,  bk.  ix,  ch.  x. 

5  See  Mommsen,  C.  I.  L.,  vol.  i,  p.  334,  and  Abhandlung  d.  Koeng. 
Sachs.  Gesch.  d.  W .,  1850,  p.  565.  Cf.  Schulze,  Der  Untergang,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  90  et  seq.;  also  Allard,  op.  cit.,  pp.  187  et  seq. 

6C.  Th.,  ix,  17,  2;  xii,  1,  46. 


Xj2  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [430 

retained  the  title  of  Pontifex  Maximus  as  had  his  father 
before  him. 

In  357,  Constantius  celebrated  his  twentieth  anniversary 
at  the  old  capital.  He  expressed  interest  in  the  temples  that 
were  pointed  out  to  him  and  seemed  to  be  genuinely  im- 
pressed by  them.  He  confirmed  privileges  to  Vestal  Virgins 
and  subsidies  to  pagan  cults  and  appointed  members  of  the 
Roman  aristocracy  to  priestly  offices.  Yet  it  was  during 
this  visit  in  the  stronghold  of  conservative  paganism  that 
Constantius  struck  a  blow  at  the  old  state  religion.  He  re- 
moved the  famous  and  deeply-revered  statue  of  Victory, 
that  had  stood  from  time  immemorial  in  the  senate  house, 
and  to  which  each  senator  made  a  sacrifice  upon  entering 
the  building.  That  this  act  seemed  to  pagans  a  sacrilege 
and  dire  calamity  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Yet  the  presence 
of  the  statue  must  have  long  irritated  Christian  senators. 
Their  number  was  evidently  large  enough  to  make  their  de- 
sires seem  reasonable  to  Constantius.  The  act  itself  is  very 
significant  of  the  emperor's  anti-pagan  spirit.1  And  yet  he 
seems  to  have  hated  pagans  less  than  heretics.2  When  he 
wished  to  harry  the  Athanasians  in  Egypt,  he  made  use  of 
the  pagan  mob  that  went  to  their  work  of  destruction  chant- 
ing pagan  hymns.     Allard  declares  it  is  difficult  to  decide 

1  Symmachus,  Ep.,  x,  54,  says  the  emperor  never  attempted  to  deprive 
the  empire  of  the  sacred  worship  of  antiquity. 

*  The  pagan  Ammianus  Marcellinus  (bk.  xxi,  ch.  xvi)  has  painted 
this  side  of  Constantius'  character : 

"  He  confused  the  Christian  religion  which  is  plain  and  simple,  with 
old  women's  superstitions;  in  investigating  which  he  preferred  per- 
plexing himself  to  settling  its  questions  with  dignity,  so  that  he  ex- 
cited much  dissension,  which  he  further  encouraged  by  diffuse,  wordy 
explanations:  he  ruined  the  establishment  of  public  conveyances  by 
devoting  them  to  the  service  of  crowds  of  priests,  who  went  to  and 
fro  to  different  synods,  as  they  call  the  meetings,  at  which  they  en- 
deavor to  settle  everything  according  to  their  own  fancy." 


43 1  ]  LAWS  OF  THE  SONS  OF  CONSTANTINE  ^3 

whether  Constantius  were  waging  war  against  the  followers 
of  the  gods  or  the  Christians  who  had  remained  faithful  to 
the  creed  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea.1 

Constantine's  sons  also  passed  harsh  laws  against  divina- 
tion; and  fears  of  a  political  conspiracy  led  to  their  rigid 
application.  Something  like  a  real  persecution  of  private 
soothsayers  occurred  in  the  late  years  of  Constantius'  reign.2 
There  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  on  political,  not  religious, 
grounds  that  the  investigation  was  made.3  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  indication  that  the  legitimate,  public  divination  with 
its  college  of  augurers  was  more  disturbed  in  this  than  in 
Constantine's  reign. 

To  sum  up  our  conclusion  of  Constantius'  attitude 
towards  paganism :  he  adopted  an  intolerant  policy  towards 
paganism,  but  even  in  the  largely  Christian  East,  did  not 
consistently  enforce  the  laws  forbidding  sacrifices  and  or- 
dering the  temples  closed.  He  did  remove  the  altar  of  Vic- 
tory from  the  Roman  senate,  but  he  continued  to  act  as  the 
conventional  Pontifex  Maximus. 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  192. 

1  See  Aram.  Marc,  bk.  xix,  ch.  xii,  for  a  detailed  account  of  how 
Constantius'  fears  of  treasonable  attempts  against  his  crown,  led  to 
miserable  persecution  of  all  who  had  been  known  to  make  sacrifices, 
or  consult  an  oracle. 

12.  "  There  was  also  Demetrius  ...  a  philosopher,  of  great  age, 
but  still  firm  in  body;  he,  when  charged  with  having  frequently  of- 
fered sacrifices  in  the  temples  of  his  oracle,  could  not  deny  it;  but 
affirmed  that,  for  the  sake  of  propitiating  the  deity,  he  had  constantly 
done  so  from  his  early  youth,  and  not  with  any  idea  of  aiming  at  any 
higher  fortune  by  his  questions;  ...  at  length  he  was  acquitted." 

8  Amm.  Marc,  bk.  xix,  ch.  xii,  gives  no  hint  that  paganism  as  such 
was  attacked  in  this  war  on  soothsaying. 


I?4  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [432 

A.    CONCERNING  MAGIC  AND  DIVINATION 
1.  Divination  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  4.     Jan.  25,  357.1 

The  Emperor  Constantius  Augustus  to  the  People. 

No  one  shall  consult  a  haruspex  or  an  astrologer ; 2  nor 
shall  anyone  consult  a  quack.3  The  vicious  belief  in  augurs 
and  soothsayers  must  cease.  Neither  shall  Chaldeans, 
magicians,4  and  others  whom  the  people  call  enchanters,5  on 
account  of  their  great  deeds,  attempt  to  do  anything  in  this 
direction.  Curiosity  to  divine  the  future  shall  be  forever 
denied  to  all.  For  whoever  refuses  obedience  to  these  com- 
mands shall  be  struck  down  by  the  avenging  sword  and 
shall  suffer  the  penalty  of  death. 

Given  the  twenty-fifth  of  January  at  Milan  in  the  eighth 
consulship  of  Constantius  Augustus  and  in  the  second  of 
Julianus  Caesar. 

2.  Malevolent  Magic  Prohibited. 

C.  77*.,  ix,  16,5.     Dec.  (?)  4,  357-6 

The  same  Augustus  to  the  people. 

After  other  provisions : 

Many  have  dared  with  magical  arts  to  stir  up  the  ele- 
ments, and  do  not  hesitate  to  endanger  the  lives  of  innocent 
persons;  and  have  dared  to  disturb  them  by  summoning 
spirits  so  that  everybody  may  despatch  his  enemies  by  means 
of  evil  arts.  Since  they  are  vagabonds  of  nature,  let  a  deadly 
destruction  consume  them.  Given  at  Milan  the  fourth  of 
December  when  the  Emperor  Constantius  was  consul  for 
the  eighth  time,  and  the  Caesar  Julian  for  the  second  time.7 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  ix,  18,  6.  *  Mathematicum. 

8  Hariolum.  *  Magi.  5  Maleficos. 

8  Cf.  C.  J.,  ix,  18,  6.    For  the  date  of  this  see  Mommsen's  note. 
7  Cf.  C.  Th.,  xi,  36,  7.    There  in  344  magicians  were  denied  the  right 
of  appeal. 


433]  LAWS  OF  THE  SONS  OF  CONSTANTINB  175 

3.  Magic  and  Divination  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  6.     July  5,  358.1 

The  same  Augustus  to  Taurus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Although  men  of  position  are  exempt  from  torture, 
except  when  convicted  of  those  crimes  which  are  indicated 
in  the  laws,  and  although  all  magicians,2  in  whatever  part . 
of  the  earth  they  may  be,  should  be  considered  as  enemies 
of  the  human  race,  nevertheless  since  some  are  in  our  court, 
they  strike  near  to  majesty  itself.  Therefore  if  any  magi- 
cian 3  or  person  devoted  to  magical,  polluting  practices,  who, 
in  common  parlance,  is  called  an  enchanter,4  or  an  harus- 
pex,  or  a  soothsayer,5  or  even  an  augur,  or  an  astrologer,6 
or  one  who  conceals  an  art  of  divination  in  tales  of  dreams, 
or  who  practises  unmistakably  anything  of  the  sort ;  if  such 
a  one  was  detected  in  my  court  or  in  the  court  of  the  Caesar, 
he  shall  not  be  protected  by  his  rank  from  torture  and 
fetters. 

If  convicted  of  that  particular  crime,  and  he  makes  re- 
sistance to  those  who  have  discovered  it,  by  stoutly  denying 
his  guilt,  he  may  be  given  to  the  wooden  rack  and  the  claws 
which  furrow  the  sides,  and  suffer  the  penalties  suitable 
to  that  especial  crime. 

Given  the  fifth  of  July  at  Arimini  in  the  consulship  of 
Datianus  and  Cerealis. 

B.    ANTI-PAGAN  LEGISLATION 
1.  Sacrifice  Prohibited. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  2,  341.  .  .  . 

The  Emperor  Constantius  to  Madalianus,  acting  in  the 
place  of  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Let  superstition  and  the  folly  of  sacrifices  be  abolished. 

1  Cf.  C.  ].,  ix,  18,  7.        *  Magi.  3  Magus. 

*  Maleficus.  5  Hariolus.  6  Mathematicus. 


I76  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [434 

Whoever  has  dared  in  the  face  of  the  law  of  the  divine 
prince,  our  father,  and  of  the  mandate  of  our  own  clemency 
to  make  sacrifices,  shall  have  appropriate  penalty,  and  im- 
mediate sentence  dealt  to  him. 

Received  during  the  consulships  of  Marcellinus  and  Pro- 
binus. 

(For  the  discussion  of  the  implication  of  this  law,  vide 
supra,  pp.  93  et  seq.) 

2.  Temples  Without  the  Walls  not  to  be  Injured. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  3.    346  (342),  Nov.  1. 

The  same  Emperors  to  Catullinus,  the  prefect  of  the  city. 

Although  all  superstition  ought  to  be  completely  rooted 
out,  nevertheless,  we  desire  that  the  temples  x  that  are  situ- 
ated outside  the  walls  should  remain  untouched  and  unin- 
jured. For,  since  from  some  of  these  originated  the  shows 
and  the  circuses  and  the  public  games,  it  is  not  fitting  that 
they  be  overturned ;  for  in  them  the  festivals  of  former  days 
may  be  represented  for  the  Roman  people. 

Given  on  the  first  day  of  November  in  the  fourth  con- 
sulate of  Constantius  and  in  the  third  of  Constans  the  Em- 
perors. 

3.  All  Temples  to  be  Closed  and  Sacrifices  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  4.     346  (354?),  Dec.  I.2 

The  same  Emperors  to  Taurus,  pretorian  prefect. 

It  is  our  will  that  in  all  districts  and  in  every  city,  the 
temples  3  be  straightway  closed  and  access  to  them  forbid- 
den and  no  opportunity  of  transgressing  afforded  any  in- 

1  Aedes  templorum. 

*  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  11,  1.    This  is  the  first  law  cited  in  the  C.  /.,  in  the  sec- 
tion De  Paganis,  Sacrificiis  et  Templis. 
1  Templa. 


4351  LAWS  OF  THE  SONS  OF  CONSTANTINE  177 

corrigible  person.1  For  we  require  that  all  refrain  from 
sacrifices;  but  if  any  one  commit  any  offense  of  this  sort, 
let  him  fall  by  the  avenging  sword.  We  further  decree  that 
the  dead  man's  property  shall  be  forfeit  to  the  fisc.  If 
rectors  of  provinces  neglect  to  mete  out  penalties  for  these 
offenses,  they  shall  be  similarly  punished. 

Given  on  the  first  day  of  December  in  the  fourth  year  of 
the  consulship  of  Constantius  and  in  the  third  of  Constans 
the  Emperors. 

4.  Evening  Sacrifices'Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  5.    353,  Nov.  23. 

The  same  Emperors  to  Cerealis,  prefect  of  the  city. 

Evening  sacrifices  permitted  by  Magnentius  2  are  to  be 
abolished  and  the  execrable  permission  to  conduct  them  is 
hereafter  to  be  refused. 

Given  the  twenty-third  of  November  in  the  sixth  consul- 
ship of  the  Emperor  Constantius  and  in  the  second  of 
Caesar. 

5.  Sacrificing  and  Idolatry  Punishable  by  Death. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  6.    356,  Feb.  19. 

The  same  Emperor  to  Julianus  Caesar. 

We  order  that  all  found  guilty  of  attending  sacrifices  or 
of  worshiping  idols  shall  suffer  capital  punishment.3 

Given  the  nineteenth  of  February  at  Milan  in  the  seventh 
consulship  of  Constantius  when  Julianus  the  Caesar  was 
also  Consul. 

1  In  this  same  year,  and  for  five  following  years,  Orfitus,  who  was 
prefect  of  Rome,  is  mentioned  in  inscriptions  as  pontiff  of  the  Sun 
and  Vesta.     Cf.  C.  I.  L.,  vol.  vi,  nos.  1737-174.?. 

2  The  usurper  had  made  a  bid  for  pagan  support  by  making  sacrifices 
legal,  at  least  if  performed  at  night. 

3  Cf.  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  46.  Here  directions  are  given  for  the  manner  of 
the  appointment  of  provincial  priests. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Valentinian  and  Valens 

The  name  of  Julian,  who  succeeded  his  cousin  in  361, 
stands  out  clearly  in  the  religious  history  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. The  policy  of  the  "  Apostate  "  toward  the  Christians, 
and  indeed  toward  religion  in  general,  is  perhaps  one  of  the 
best-known  chapters  in  the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
Yet  when  we  come  to  look  at  the  actual  legislation  of  his 
reign,  we  are  struck  by  a  fact  which  the  imaginative  elabor- 
ation of  interested  historians  tends  to  obscure:  that  his  reign 
after  all  lasted  but  two  years,  and  even  then  was  largely 
taken  up  with  many  problems  outside  the  struggle  of  rival 
religions.  He  himself,  in  spite  of  his  professions  of  syn- 
cretism, shared  largely  in  the  intolerance  of  his  predecessor, 
though  the  object  of  his  scorn  was  Christian,  instead  of 
pagan  cult. 

His  early  Christian  training  had  bred  in  him  a  deep  dis- 
like of  the  new  religion  and  an  ardent  devotion  to  paganism. 
In  his  short  reign  of  two  years  he  attempted  to  re-quicken 
paganism.  To  this  end  he  gave  it  an  elaborate  ritual,1  and 
attempted  to  set  forth  a  clarified  philosophy  of  neo-pla- 
tonism  that  might  unite  all  pagan  sympathies.  The  inef- 
fectualness  of  his  attempt  is  taken  often  as  evidence  of  the 
weakened  condition  of  paganism,  but  two  years  was  too 

1  Amm.  Marc,  bk.  xxii,  ch.  xii,  "  the  rites  and  ceremonies  were  mar- 
velously  multiplied  with  a  vastness  of  expense  hitherto  unprecedented ; 
and  as  it  was  now  allowed  without  hindrance,  everyone  professed  him- 
self skilful  in  divination,"  etc. 

178  [436 


437]  VALENTINIAN  AND  VALENS  iyg 

short  a  time  in  which  to  expect  to  turn  a  current  that  had 
been  setting  in  one  direction  for  half  a  century;  and  fur- 
thermore, Julian's  kind  of  paganism  repelled  some  pagans. 
Ammianus  Marcellinus  says  "  he  was  too  much  devoted  to 
divination.  .  .  .  He  was  rather  a  superstitious  than  a  legiti- 
mate observer  of  sacred  rites."  1 

While  laboring  to  re-invigorate  paganism,  Julian  at- 
tacked Christianity  both  directly  and  indirectly,  although  he 
did  not  actually  persecute  its  adherents,  and  particularly 
"  charged  the  people  not  to  commit  any  act  of  injustice 
against  any  Christian,  not  to  insult  them,  and  not  to  con- 
strain them  to  sacrifice  unwillingly."  2  He  did,  however, 
deprive  the  clergy  of  privileges  and  immunities  they  had 
acquired,  and  he  appropriated  Church  property.3  He  for- 
bade Christians  to  teach  the  Greek  classics,4  and  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  says  it  was  a  cruel  action  not  to  allow  Chris- 
tians to  receive  instruction  in  rhetoric  and  grammar.5  He 
ordered  Christian  sects  to  allow  their  opponents  to  follow 
their  own  creeds. 

He  did  this  the  more  resolutely  because  as  long  as  license  in- 
creased their  dissensions,  he  thought  he  should  never  have  to 
fear  the  unanimity  of  the  common  people,  having  found  by 
experience  that  no  wild  beasts  are  so  hostile  to  men  as  Chris- 
tian sects  in  general  are  to  one  another. 6 

Julian  came  to  his  death  in  a  campaign  against  the  Per- 

1  Bk.  xxv,  ch.  iv. 

2  Soz.,  bk.  v,  ch.  v. 
s  Ibid. 

*  Julian's  Epistle,  42. 

5  Bk.  xxii,  ch.  x.  "  But  his  forbidding  masters  of  rhetoric  and 
grammar  to  instruct  Christians  was  a  cruel  action  and  one  deserving 
to  be  buried  in  everlasting  silence."     Cf.  bk.  xxv,  ch.  iv. 

6  Am.  Marc,  bk.  xxii,  ch.  v;  cf.  Soc,  bk.  iii,  ch.  xvi. 


^o  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [438 

sians  and  Jovian  ruled  in  his  place  for  less  than  a  year.1 
The  new  emperor  was  evidently  a  Christian,2  and  he  is  be- 
lieved, on  somewhat  inconclusive  evidence,  to  have  pub- 
lished an  edict  restoring  Christianity  to  the  privileged  posi- 
tion it  had  lost  under  Julian.3  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
no  evidence  that  he  directed  any  laws  against  paganism.4 

After  a  reign  of  eight  months,  Jovian  died  suddenly  and 
the  army  elected  Valentinian  as  his  successor.5  The  soldiers 
clamored  for  the  newly-appointed  emperor  to  select  a  col- 
league, and  although  Valentinian  refused  to  do  so  at  that 
time,  he  did  shortly  afterwards  make  his  younger  brother 
Valens  Augustus  of  the  East.6  Both  Valentinian  and 
Valens  were  Christians,  but  like  Constans  and  Constantius, 
they  held  opposing  views  on  the  burning  theological  ques- 
tion of  that  day,  the  relation  of  God  the  Son  to  God  the 
Father.  Valentinian  agreed  with  Athanasius,  while  Valens 
was  a  warm  partisan  of  Arianism.7  The  brothers  reigned 
about  an  equal  term  of  years;  the  older  dying  in  375,  the 
younger  perishing  at  the  battle  of  Adrianople,  three  years 
later. 

The  most  difficult  problem  during  these  reigns  was  how 
to  keep  the  barbarians  out  of  the  Empire.  At  the  opening 
of  Valentinian's  rule  the  Alemanni  and  Burgundians  were 
threatening  Italy,  and  other  tribes  were  pressing  into  the 
outlying  provinces.  In  the  East  the  persistent  Goths  were 
threatening  the  Danube.     It  was  when  Valens  was  protect- 

1  June,  363,  to  February,  364. 

*  Amm.  Marc,  bk.  xxv,  ch.  x. 

s  Themistius,  Oratio,  v,  Philostorgius,  His.  Ecc,  bk.  viii,  ch.  v. 

*  Theodoret  says  he  extinguished  the  heathen  sacrificial  fires,  but  this 
seems  improbable. 

6  Zos.,  bk.  iii,  p.  93 ;  Am.  Marcel.,  bk.  xxvi,  ch.  ii ;  Soz.,  bk.  vi,  ch.  vi. 
6  Am.  Marcel.,  ibid.;  Soz.,  ibid. 
1  Soc,  bk.  iv,  ch.  i. 


439]  VALENTINIAN  AND  VALENS  igi 

ing  his  frontier  against  these  Germans,  that  Procopius, 
whom  Julian  had  named  as  his  successor,  assumed  the  title 
of  Emperor.  To  his  support  flocked  the  men  who  had  suf- 
fered under  Valens'  cruelty  and  injustice,  and  it  was  some 
months  before  the  revolt  was  crushed.  In  view  of  these 
ever-recurring  plots  against  the  emperors,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  they  should  have  been  suspicious  of  divination,  that 
might  have  for  its  object  the  picking  of  the  next  emperor. 

In  spite  of  these  absorbing  political  cares,  Valentinian 
gave  attention  to  religious  matters  in  the  empire.  His  re- 
ligious policy,  which  was  also  that  of  Valens  (except  in  re- 
gard to  the  treatment  of  heretics),  appears  to  have  been 
identical  with  that  of  Constantine — complete  toleration  for 
all  cults.  He  referred,  in  a  law  of  371/  to  the  enactments 
he  had  made  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  when  he  had 
assured  every  man  full  liberty  to'  follow  any  religion  he 
chose. 

Evidently  during  Julian's  reign  certain  privileges  and 
exemptions  secured  to  the  Church  under  Constantine  and 
his  sons  had  fallen  into  disuse,  if  they  had  not  been  formally 
rescinded.  To  Valentinian,  then,  fell  the  duty  of  restoring 
Christianity  to  the  position  it  had  held  under  Constantius. 
In  a  general  law,  he  confirmed  to  the  clergy  the  privileges 
granted  them  by  Constantius.2    More  particularly  he  freed 

1  C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  9.    For  text,  vide  infra,  p.  186. 

'  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  18,  370,  Feb.  17.  Idem  AA.  ad  Claudium  Pro(con- 
sulem)  Afric(ae).  Quam  ultimo  tempore  divi  Constanti  sententiam 
fuisse  claruerit,  valeat,  nee  ea  in  adsimulatione  aliqua  convalescant, 
quae  tunc  decreta  vel  facta  sunt,  cum  paganorum  animi  contra  sanc- 
tissimam  legem  quibusdam  sunt  depravationibus  excitati. 

N.  B. — This  is  the  first  law  in  which  the  term  pagani  is  found. 
Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  19.  The  term  "  ultimo  tempero  "  was  required  since 
the  emperor,  in  the  earlier  part  of  his  reign  was  under  Arian  influences. 
The  "  depravationibus "  were  the  wiles  of  the  Donatists  working  on 
the  mind  of  Julian.  Schultze,  Untergang,  p.  316,  has  an  interesting  note 
on  the  word   paganus.    He   says   it   appeared   in   the  2nd   century  in 


Lg2  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [440 

certain  ecclesiastics  from  curial  burdens.1  The  day  of  the 
Sun  was  again  declared  a  holiday,  at  least  for  Christians." 
Eastertide  was  to  be  a  season  of  general  pardon  for  all  but 
a  small  group  of  peculiarly  dangerous  offenders.3  Any 
judge  or  official  who  forced  a  Christian  to  care  for  a  temple 
was  to  be  severely  punished.4     Christian  criminals  were  not 

contradistinction  to  miles,  as  the  expression  for  burgher  or  civilian, 
and  out  of  it  later  developed  the  difference  between  jus  militum  and 
jus  paganorum.  lus  paganorum  is  here  identical  with  the  old  Roman 
law,  the  private  law.  Kuntze  (Exkurse  Uber  rom.  Recht,  Leipsig. 
1880,  pp.  644  et  seq.)  believes  the  expression  arose  from  the  fact  that 
the  soldiers  considered  their  walled  fortifications  (castra)  which  be- 
came important  places  for  meeting  and  for  protection,  even  important 
cities,  as  the  most  important  places  in  the  empire  and  what  lay  outside 
as  inferior.  Pagani  were  therefore  the  people  who  lived  outside  the 
castra.  The  expression  was  very  appropriate  in  the  province  where 
the  majority  of  the  population  still  were  settled  in  scattered  groups,  and 
the  castra  was  frequently  the  only  district  enclosed.  In  the  fourth 
century  there  was  a  recoining  of  the  expression,  and  in  ecclesiastic 
and  juristic  language,  and  pagani  came  to  be  used  as  a  synonym  of 
gentiles,  and  in  place  of  employing  pagani  in  contradistinction  to 
milites  the  word  privati  came  into  use.  Since  in  the  Roman  state,  only 
the  cities  counted  and  since  in  them  Christianity  had  triumphed  while 
in  the  outlying  districts  the  old  cults  lingered  longer,  it  is  easy  to 
understand  this  later  use  of  the  term  pagani.  At  the  same  time  that 
pagani  with  this  connotation  is  discovered  in  the  laws,  it  is  found  in 
ecclesiastic  literature.  In  the  fifth  century  it  became  the  usual  popular 
term  for  the  heathen;  e.  g.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  46,  "gentiles  quos  vulgo 
paganos  appellant."  Cf.  Aug.  Retract,  ii,  43  "quos  usitato  nomine 
paganos  vocamus."  In  the  Louvre  there  is  a  grave  stone  of  a  fourth 
century  Christian  inscribed  "  pagana  nata  .  .  .  fidelis  facta;  see  de 
Rossi  Bull,  di  archeol.  crist.  1868,  p.  75-  Orosius  explains  the  term 
paganns,  bk.  i,  §  9  "qui  alieni  a  civitate  Dei  ex  locorum  agrestium 
conpitis  et  pagis  pagani  vocantur  sive  gentiles  quia  terrena  sapiunt,  qui 
cum  futura  non  quaerant  etc."  Prudentius  i,  260,  speaks  of  "  pago  im- 
plicitos." 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  21,  May,  371  •    Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  22,  23,  24. 

s  C.  Th.,  viii,  8,  1 ;  cf.  xi,  7,  10. 

3  C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  3,  4;  vide  infra,  p.  188,  for  texts. 

*  C.  Th.,  xvi,  1,  1. 


4I  VALENTIN  IAN  AND  VALENS  183 

to  be  condemned  to  the  arena.1  Actors  who  were  converted 
to  Christianity  during  an  illness,  were  not,  upon  recovery, 
to  be  forced  to  remain  in  that  profession.2  Julian's  provi- 
sion that  no  Christians  should  teach  philosophy  was  abro- 
gated by  a  positive  enactment  declaring  academic  fitness  the 
qualification  for  teachers,3 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Emperor  forbade  wealthy  men 
becoming  clergymen.4  For  some  time  there  had  been 
a  grave  scandal  over  the  large  bequests  Christian  women 
were  leaving  the  clergy.  Ambrose  5  deplored  the  condition, 
and  Valentinian  set  himself  to  cure  it  by  decreeing  that  tne 
clergy  should  not  receive  gifts  or  legacies  from  Christian 
women,  unless  they  were  their  natural  heirs  at  law.6 

Ammianus  Marcellinus  7  gives  high  praise  to  Valentinian 
for  his  liberal  policy  in  religious  affairs.     He  declares  that 

he  was  especially  remarkable  during  his  reign  for  his  modera- 
tion in  this  particular,  that  he  kept  a  middle  course  between 
the  different  sects  of  religion ;  and  never  troubled  anyone,  nor 
issued  any  orders  in  favor  of  one  kind  of  worship  or  another ; 
nor  did  he  promulgate  any  threatening  edicts  to  bow  down  the 
necks  of  his  subjects  to  the  form  of  worship  to  which  he  him- 
self was  inclined;  but  he  left  these  parties  just  as  he  found 
them,  without  making  any  alterations. 

Themistius  8  is  warm  in  praising  Valens  also  for  his  toler- 
ation of  paganism.  During  the  reigns  of  the  two  brothers 
no  laws  seem  to  have  been  passed  against  the  pagan  cults. 
Libanius  says  that  "  sacrifices  were  forbidden  by  the  two 

1  C.  Th.,  ix,  40,  8;  cf.  ix,  40,  II. 

2  C.  Th.,  xv,  7,1.  5  C.  Th.,  xiii,  3,  6. 
4  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  17.                                   5  Epistle  18. 

6  C.  Th.,  xvii,  2,  20.  7  Bk.  xxx,  ch.  ix. 

8  Oration  12. 


jg4  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [442 

brothers,  but  not  incense,"  *  and  it  is  probable  that  these  sac- 
rifices were  connected  with  divination  or  magic,  which  were 
both  under  the  imperial  ban.  At  the  same  time  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  informs  us  that  temples  were  open  and  oracles 
fully  consulted.  Laws  have  been  preserved  which  con- 
firmed priests  in  their  privileges,2  and  show  that  temples 
were  cared  for.3  Valentinian  did  publish  a  law  ordering 
that  all  temple  property  that  had  been  acquired  by  private 
parties,  under  former  emperors,  should  be  turned  over  to 
the  imperial  treasury.  Schultze  points  out 4  that  this  law 
hi£  Christians  rather  than  pagans,  for  it  was  the  former 
who  had  entered  into  such  possessions  under  Constans  and 
Constantius.  It  was  evidently  a  canny  expedient  for  enrich- 
ing the  treasury,  and  its  author  may  have  wished  it  inter- 
preted rather  as  a  pro-pagan  than  an  anti-pagan  measure. 

In  both  the  West  and  the  East  severe  laws  were  passed 
prohibiting  all  but  legal  divination.5  The  historians  give 
detailed  accounts  of  the  harsh  way  in  which  these  laws  were 
administered.6  They  were  finally  made  to  apply  to  all  phil- 
osophers. 

1  Pro  paganis,  p.  76. 

2  For  texts,  vide  infra,  p.  189. 

>C.  Th.,  xvi,  i,  1;  vide  infra,  p.  189,  for  text. 

4  Cf.  Der  Untergang,  p.  200;  C.  Th.,  x,  1,  8. 
'  For  text,  vide  infra,  pp.  186  et  seq. 

5  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  bk.  xxvi,  ch.  iii,  passim,  but  particularly, 
pars.  3  and  4.  "  At  last,  after  many  punishments  of  this  kind  had 
been  inflicted,  he  condemned  to  death  the  charioteer  Hilarius,  who 
was  convicted  on  his  own  confession  of  having  intrusted  his  son, 
who  was  but  a  very  young  boy,  to  a  sorcerer  to  be  taught  some  secret 
mysteries  forbidden  by  the  laws,  in  order  that  he  might  avail  him- 
self of  unlawful  assistance  without  the  privity  of  any  one.  But,  as 
the  executioner  held  him  but  loosely  he  suddenly  escaped  and  fled 
to  a  Christian  altar,  and  had  to  be  dragged  from  it,  when  he  was  im- 
mediately beheaded. 

But  soon  ample  precautions  were  taken   against  the  recurrence  of 


443]  VALENTINIAN  AND  VALENS  185 

Zosimus,  however,  records  a  case  where  the  law  was  sus- 
pended.   He  says  of  Valentinian : 

Resolving  likewise  to  institute  some  new  laws,  he  began  by 
prohibiting  the  nocturnal  sacrifices,  intending  by  that  measure 
to  restrain  and  prevent  vicious  actions.  However  when  Prae- 
textatus,  the  proconsul  of  Greece,  a  person  endowed  with 
good  virtues,  represented  to  him  that  the  Greeks  could  not  sub- 
sist under  such  a  law,  by  which  they  were  withheld  from  the 
performance  of  those  sacred  mysteries,  which  were  to  them 
the  great  bond  of  society,  he  allowed  them  to  be  celebrated  in 
the  usual  manner  without  regard  to  his  own  edict,  and  took 
care  that  everything  should  be  performed  according  to  the 
ancient  custom  of  the  country.1 

Valens  was  a  cowardly  creature  and  fearful  of  conspir- 
acies. In  consequence  private  divination  was  cruelly  pun- 
ished in  his  dominions.  The  observance  of  harmless  super- 
stitions might  cause  a  man  to  lose  his  life.2    It  became  notor- 

this  and  similar  offences,  and  there  were  none  or  very  few  who  ven- 
tured afterwards  to  insult  the  rigor  of  the  public  law  by  practising 
these  iniquities.  But  at  a  later  period  long  impunity  nourished  atro- 
cious crimes;  and  licentiousness  increased  to  such  a  pitch  that  a  cer- 
tain senator  followed  the  example  of  Hilarius,  and  was  convicted  of 
having  almost  articled  by  a  regular  contract  one  of  his  slaves  to  a 
teacher  of  the  black  art,  to  be  instructed  in  his  impious  mysteries, 
though  he  escaped  punishment  by  an  enormous  bribe,  as  common  re- 
port went."  Cf.  bk.  xxviii,  ch.  i. 
1  Bk.  iv,  p.  94. 

*  Zos.,  bk.  iv,  pp.  100-101.  Am.  Marcel,  bk.  xxix,  ch.  ii,  especially 
par.  26.  "  There  was  a  certain  simple  old  woman  who  was  wont  to 
cure  intermittent  fever  by  a  gentle  incantation,  whom  he  put  to  death 
as  a  witch,  after  she  had  been  summoned,  with  his  consent,  to  his 
daughter,  and  had  cured  her."  Also  par.  28.  "  A  young  man  was  seen 
in  the  bath  to  put  the  fingers  of  each  hand  alternately  against  the 
marble  and  against  his  own  chest,  and  then  to  repeat  the  names  of  the 
seven  vowels,  fancying  that  a  remedy  for  a  pain  in  the  stomach.  For 
this  he  was  brought  before  the  court,  put  to  the  torture,  and  then 
beheaded."     Cf.  Soc.,  bk.  iv,  ch.  xix. 


1 86  LAWS  A  GAINST  PA  G  AN  ISM  [444 

ious  that  the  rapacious  Emperor  allowed  his  officials  to 
charge  subjects  with  the  offenses  of  magic  or  divination, 
simply  as  an  excuse  for  confiscating  their  property.1  It  is 
perfectly  clear  that  in  all  the  persecutions  for  magic  and 
divination  under  Valentinian  and  Valens,  there  is  no  anti- 
pagan  animus  to  be  discerned.  The  attitude  of  these  em- 
perors in  the  matter  is  that  of  Constantine  and  his  pagan 
predecessors.2 

A.    LEGAL  DIVINATION  AND  FULL  RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION 
PERMITTED 

C.  Th.,  ix,  1 6,  9.    May  29,  371. 

The  Emperors  Valentinian,  Valens  and  Gratian  Augusti, 
to  the  Senate. 

We  adjudge  that  divination  has  no  connection  with  sor- 
cery, nor,  furthermore,  do  we  consider  that  divination  itself, 
nor  any  other  religious  observance  permitted  or  sanctioned 
by  our  ancestors  is  criminal  in  character.  The  laws  given 
by  me  at  the  opening  of  my  reign  are  witnesses  that  to 
every  one  is  granted  the  freedom  of  worshiping  what  he 
has  determined  in  his  own  mind. 

We  do  not  condemn  divination  but  we  forbid  its  being 
practised  harmfully. 

Given  the  twenty-ninth  of  May  at  Treves  in  the  second 
consulship  of  Gratian  the  Augustus  and  the  first  of  that  of 
Probus. 

B.    CONCERNING    MAGIC    AND   DIVINATION 
1.  Nocturnal  Sacrifices  and  Magic  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  7.     Sep.  9,  364. 

The  Emperors  Valentinian  and  Valens  Augusti  to 
Secundus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

1  Am.  Marc,  bk.  xxix,  ch.  ii;  cf.  bk.  xxi,  eh.  xiv. 

2  Vide  supra. 


44,-j  VALENT1NIAN  AND  VALENS  187 

From  henceforth  let  no  one  attempt  at  night  to  raise 
abominable  prayers,  or  to  elaborate  calamitous  sacrifices  or 
magical x  ceremonies.  We  decree  by  our  eternal  authority 
that  any  one  detected  or  convicted  shall  suffer  a  fitting  pun- 
ishment. 

Given  the  ninth  of  September  when  the  divine  Jovian 
and  Varronianus  were  consuls. 

2.  Astrology  Forbidden. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  8.    Dec.  12,  370  (  ?)  ;  373  ( ?). 

The  same  Augusti  to  Modestus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Astrologers  are  to  give  up  their  profession.  Moreover, 
anyone  discovered  publicly,  or  privately,  by  day  or  by  night, 
in  the  forbidden  transgression  shall  suffer  capital  punish- 
ment. It  is  equally  a  misdemeanor  to  learn  or  teach  what  is 
forbidden. 

Given  the  twelfth  of  December  at  Constantinople  in  the 
consulships  of  Valentinian  and  Valens.2 

3.  The  Treatment  of  Senators  Charged  with  Sorcery. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  10.    Dec.  6,  371. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Ampelius,  the  prefect  of  the  city. 

Since  some  persons  of  senatorial  rank  were  touched  by 
the  charge  and  odium  of  sorcery,  therefore  we  have  granted 
that  business  of  this  sort  shall  be  handled  through  the  office 
of  the  pretorian  prefect.  But  whenever  a  matter  of  this 
sort  does  come  up,  which  it  is  considered  cannot  be  adjusted 
or  finished  by  a  decision  of  the  aforesaid  tribunal,  we  or- 
dain, that  those  whom  the  business  touches,  along  with  an 
account  of  all  past  and  present  acts,  shall  be  transferred  to 
the  court  of  our  clemency  for  its  serious  investigation. 

1  Apparatus  magic os. 

2  Cf.  C.  I.,  ix,  18,  8.  Concerning  the  date  of  this  law,  see  Mommsen's 
note. 


!88  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [446 

Given  on  the  sixth  of  December  in  the  second  consulship 
of  Gratian  when  Probus  was  also  consul. 

4.  Easter  Pardons  not  to  Apply  to  Magicians. 

C.  Th.tixt  38,  3-    May  5,  367(369). 

The  Emperors  Valentinian,  Valens  and  Gratian  Augusti 
to  Viventius,  prefect  of  the  city. 

Because  of  Easter  which  we  celebrate  with  heartfelt  feel- 
ing we  strike  off  the  fetters  of  all  who  under  a  charge  of 
guilt  are  lying  in  prison. 

Nevertheless  the  man  who  is  guilty  of  lese-majesty,  the 
criminal  who  has  injured  the  dead,  the  poisoner  or  the  magi- 
cian, the  adulterer,  the  ravisher,  and  the  homicide  shall  not 
enjoy  this  pardon. 

Given  the  fifth  of  May  at  Rome  in  the  consulship  of  Lu- 
percinus  and  Jovinus. 

5.  Sorcerers  not  to  be  Pardoned  at  Easter  Time. 

C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  4.    June  6,  368. 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  Olybrius,  the  prefect  of  the 
city. 

The  Easter  celebration  demands  that  we  pardon  those 
who  are  now  looking  forward  apprehensively  to  the  pain  of 
torture  or  to  the  horror  of  punishment. 

Nevertheless  the  old  custom  of  decrees  is  to  be  preserved, 
in  order  that  we  may  not  allow  the  crime  of  homicide,  the 
monstrousness  of  adultery,  the  violence  of  lese-majesty,  the 
sin  of  sorcery,  the  craftiness  of  poisoners  and  the  outrage 
of  abduction  to  escape  boldly. 

Read  the  sixth  of  June  in  the  sixth  consulate  of  Valens 
and  the  first  of  Valentinian  the  Augusti.1 

Cf.  C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  5- 


^ji  VALENTINIAN  AND  VALENS  189 

C.    PRO-PAGAN 

Temples  Open. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  1,  1.    Nov.  ( ?)  17,  365. 

The  Emperors  Valentinian  and  Valens  to  Symmachus, 
the  prefect  of  the  city. 

Any  judge  or  public  official  who  appoints  Christians  to 
care  for  temples  shall  suffer  in  body  and  estate. 

Given  the  seventeenth  of  November  at  Milan  during  the 
consulships  of  the  Emperors  Valentinian  and  Valens. 

2.  Privileges  of  Priests  Confirmed. 

a.  C.  Th,,  xii,  1,  60.     Sep.  12,  364.1 
The  same  Augusti  to  the  Byzacenians. 

Neither  priests  nor  curials  may  be  commanded  to  present 
themselves  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  city.  In  creating 
priests  and  the  privileges  which  are  conferred  upon  them, 
the  ancient  custom  shall  be  preserved. 

Given  on  the  twelfth  of  September  at  Aquileia  when  the 
divine  Jovian  and  Varronianus  were  consuls. 

b.  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  75.    June  28,  371. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Viventius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

All  who  rise  to  the  honor  of  the  priesthood  of  a  province, 
or  chief  magistracy,  step  by  step,  filling  each  office  in  its 
order  by  their  own  labor,  not  by  favor,  or  by  begging  votes, 
and  whose  acts  are  approved  by  the  favorable  report  of  the 
citizens  and  by  the  whole  body  public,  shall  enjoy  immunity 
and  the  peace  which  they  deserve  by  their  continuous  labor, 
and  shall  be  exempt  from  those  bodily  penalties  which  are 
not  suitable  for  honorati  to  undergo. 

Given  the  twenty-eighth  of  June  at  Treves  in  the  second 
consulship  of  Gratian  when  Probus  was  also  consul. 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  x,  32,  25. 


CHAPTER  V 
Gratian  and  Theodosius 

In  367  *  Valentinian  had  a  severe  illness.  Upon  his  re- 
covery he  obtained  his  soldiers'  consent  to  make  his  young 
son,  Gratian,  his  second  colleague.  The  boy  was  evidently 
about  sixteen  years  of  age  2  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death 
in  375  when  his  real  reign  began.  Six  days  after  Valen- 
tinian's  death,  Gratian's  half  brother,  Valentinian,  a  child 
of  four, 

was  declared  lawful  emperor,  and  saluted  as  Augustus  with  the 
usual  solemnities.  And  although  at  the  time  many  persons 
thought  that  Gratian  would  be  indignant  that  any  one  else  had 
been  appointed  emperor  without  his  permission,  yet  afterwards, 
when  all  fear  and  anxiety  was  removed,  they  lived  in  greater 
security,  because  he,  wise  and  kind-hearted  man  as  he  was, 
loved  his  young  relative  with  exceeding  affection  and  brought 
him  up  with  great  care.3 

After  Valens'  miserable  end  at  Adrianople  378,  Gratian 
chose  as  his  uncle's  successor,  Theodosius,  a  Spaniard  of 
exceptional  military  ability  and  experience,  who  was  to  pro- 
tect the  eastern  part  of  the  Empire  from  the  Germans.4 
Gratian  himself  met  his  death  on  the  twenty-fifth  of  Au- 

1  Am.  Marcel.,  bk.  xxvii,  ch.  vi. 

2  Gibbon  puts  his  age  at  seventeen.  If  he  were  twenty-four  at  his 
death  (cf.  Rauschen,  Jahrbucher  der  Christlichen  Kirche,  p.  144), 
Gratian  was  sixteen  in  375. 

3  Am.  Marcel.,  bk.  xxx,  ch.  x. 

4  Zos.,  bk.  iv,  p.  107. 

190  [448 


44n]  GRATIAN  AND  THEODOSIUS  tqi 

gust,  383,  at  the  hands  of  an  assassin,  at  Lyons,  where  he 
had  fled  before  the  usurper  Maximus. 

Gratian  was  an  Athanasian  and  passed  many  measures 
against  the  heretics,1  but  concerned  himself  less  with  enact- 
ments for  orthodox  Christians.  He  did  not  subsidize  the 
Church,  and  even  failed  to  abrogate  some  of  the  restrictive 
laws  against  its  officers.  In  some  ways  Christian  clergy- 
men were  less  well  off  than  pagan  priests :  ~  a  curial  could 
not  enter  holy  orders  without  giving  up  his  property ; 3 
in  certain  cases  ecclesiastics  were  forbidden  to  receive 
legacies,  even  of  personal  effects.  On  the  other  hand, 
clergymen  were  freed  from  some  civic  obligation  *  and 
Christian  daughters  of  actors  did  not  have  to  follow  the 
profession  of  their  parents.5 

Apostasy  from  the  Christian  faith,  long  severely  pun- 
ished by  the  Church,  was  first  made  a  legal  offense  during 
the  reigns  of  Gratian  and  Theodosius.  In  May,  383  two' 
laws  were  enacted  against  apostasy;  one  was  published  on 
the  twentieth  of  the  month  at  Constantinople  by  Theodosius, 
the  other  a  day  later  at  Padua  6  by  Gratian,  a  fact  which 
shows  that  the  emperors  were  in  sympathy  in  this  matter. 
A  law  promulgated  at  Padua  382,  indicates  that  suits  could 
be  brought  against  the  estates  of  deceased  apostates  within 
a  specified  term  of  years.  7 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11. 

2  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  258. 

3  C.  Th.,  xii,  I,  99,  Apr.  18,  383. 

4  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  24,  26;  cf.  xiii,  1,  n.  In  C.  Th..  xi,  16,  15,  certain 
special  burdens  are  bound  upon  the  Church  while  its  officers  are  freed 
from  common  civic  duties. 

5  C.  Th.,  xv,  7,  4 ;  cf.  xv,  7,  8,  9. 

6  C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  2,  3;  for  texts  vide  infra,  pp.  197-198. 

7  C.  /.,  i,  7,  2 ;  for  text  vide  infra,  p.  197.  For  the  remaining  law- 
given  by  these  emperors  on  this  subject,  vide  infra,  p.  197. 


I92  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [450 

For  paganism  Gratian' s  eight  years  of  rule  were  of  vast 
significance.  Although  educated  by  Ausonius  who  praised 
his  pupil  for  his  tolerance,  Gratian  later  came  under  the 
influence  of  Ambrose,  the  militant  bishop  of  Milan,  whose 
spirit  can  be  detected  in  some  of  the  Emperor's  actions.  In 
the  very  year  1  of  his  father's  death,  Gratian  refused  to  re- 
ceive the  robe  of  the  Pontifex  Maximus  declaring  it  un- 
suitable for  a  Christian.2 

During  his  reign  Gratian  was  much  concerned  with  the 
imminent  peril  of  a  Gothic  invasion  and  some  years  were 
to  elapse  before  he  took  action  directly  against  paganism. 
In  382,  however,  the  Emperor  dealt  paganism  several  dis- 
astrous blows.3  He  appropriated  the  income  of  the  pagan 
priesthoods  and  the  Vestal  Virgins  and  gave  their  property 
to  the  fisc,  and  later,  according  to  Symmachus,  squan- 
dered it  "  on  base  money-changers  and  on  the  hire  of  worth- 
less porters  (ad  degeneres  trapezitas,  ad  mercedem  vilium 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  7. 

a  Zos.,  bk.  iv,  pp.  115-116.  "Upon  the  elevation  of  any  one  to  the 
imperial  dignity,  the  pontifices  brought  him  the  priestly  habit,  and 
he  was  immediately  styled,  Pontifex  Maximus,  or  chief  priest.  All 
former  emperors,  indeed,  appeared  gratified  with  the  distinction,  and 
willingly  adopted  the  title.  Even  Constantine  himself,  when  he  was 
Emperor,  accepted  it,  although  he  was  seduced  from  the  path  of 
rectitude  in  regard  to  sacred  affairs,  and  had  embraced  the  Christian 
faith.  In  like  manner  did  all  who  succeeded  him  to  Valentinian  and 
Valens.  But  when  the  Pontifices  in  the  accustomed  manner,  brought 
the  sacred  robe  to  Gratian,  he,  considering  it  a  garment  unlawful  for  a 
Christian  to  use,  rejected  their  offer.  When  the  robe  was  restored 
to  the  priests  who  brought  it,  their  chief  is  said  to  have  made  this 
observation,  "  If  the  emperor  refuses  to  become  Pontifex,  we  shall  soon 
make  one."  Schultze,  Untergang,  p.  214,  believes  that  in  refusing  the 
title  and  robes  of  the  Pontifex  Maximus,  Gratian  in  no  wise  gave  up 
the  rights  attached  to  the  position,  for  these  rights  were  too  im- 
portant to  relinquish  for  a  religious  sentiment. 

3  The  main  sources  for  our  knowledge  of  these  acts  of  Gratian  are 
Symmachus,  Relatione*  and  a  couple  of  letters;  nos.  xvii  and  xviii,  of 
Ambrose  to  Valentinian  II. 


45I]  GRATIAN  AND  THEODOSIUS  ^3 

baiulorum)  as  well  as  on  public  thoroughfares."  1  Even  the 
personal  possessions  of  the  colleges  were  confiscated  to 
the  fisc.2  The  colleges  were  to  receive  no  future  gifts,3 
and  also  lost  their  immunities.4  Finally,  to  crown  all  the 
Altar  of  Victory  was  removed  from  the  Senate  House  at 
Rome.5 

The  goddess  of  Victory  was  the  most  highly  honored  of 
all  the  deities  in  the  Roman  State.  She  was  regarded  as 
the  symbol  of  the  power  of  Rome,  the  bringer  of  victories, 
and  was  often  called  Victoria  Adveniens;  to  her  the  most 
solemn  vows  were  paid.  The  figure  of  Victory  which  stood 
in  the  Senate  House,  was  a  bronze  statue  of  a  winged 
maiden  of  exalted  beauty  standing  on  a  globe  with  a  laurel 
wreath  in  her  hand.  It  had  been  brought  from  Tarentum 
and  was  the  most  famous  of  the  statues  of  the  goddess. 
Men  believed  that  as  long  as  it  endured  and  received  the 
accustomed  reverence,  Roman  arms  would  be  victorious  and 
the.  state  impregnable.  Before  the  Victory  stood  the  altar 
Augustus  had  erected  after  Actium  and  upon  it,  during  four 
centuries,  every  Senator,  upon  entering  the  senate  house, 
had  thrown  a  few  grains  of  incense,  before  giving  his  at- 
tention to  the  weighty  affairs  of  state.  Towards  this  altar 
a  man  held  his  hands  in  taking  the  oath  to  the  new  Emperor. 
At  it  were  paid  the  vows  for  the  health  of  the  Emperor  and 
the  prosperity  of  the  state  on  the  third  of  January.6     The 

1  Sym.,  Relatio  iii,  Seeck's  ed.,  p.  288,  3. 

2  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  20. 

s  Sym.,  Relatio  i,  c.  282,  27  and  Ambrose,  Ep.  18,  7. 

*  Symmachus,  Relatio  i,  282,  18  and  Ambrose,  Ep.  17,  4. 

3  Sym.,  Relatio  i,  c.  281,  8;  Ambrose,  Ep.  17,  9.  Godefroy,  C.  Th., 
ix.  35,  3-  believes  the  deed  was  done  376.  For  an  account  of  the 
Altar  of  Victory,  vide,  Richter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  551  et  seq.  and  Dill,  op.  cit. 
and  Glover,  Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century,  pp.  269  et  seq. 

6  Boissier,  La  Fin  du  Paganisme,  vol.  ii,  p.  295. 


I94  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [452 

altar  was  removed  by  Constantius  during  his  visit  to  Rome, 
but  after  his  departure  was  set  up  again.  Julian  naturally 
did  not  disturb  it  and  even  Valentinian  allowed  it  to  remain 
in  its  accustomed  place. 

There  was  great  excitement  when  Gratian  removed  the 
altar.  Pagans  felt  themselves  wounded  both  in  their  reli- 
gion and  their  national  pride.  They  feared  also  that  the 
empire  would  suffer  in  consequence  of  this  sacrilegious  act. 
Those  Christians  too,  who  saw  in  the  statue  only  a  symbolic 
figure  of  Rome's  power,  disapproved  of  its  removal.1  The 
Senate  sent  a  deputation  2  to  appeal  to  Gratian  to  restore 
the  Altar  of  Victory,  and  the  endowments  to  the  Vestal 
Virgins,  and  the  priestly  colleges.  The  Christian  Sena- 
tors,3 on  the  other  hand  had  forwarded  a  libellus  by  Pope 
Damasus  to  Ambrose  who  presented  it  to  the  Emperor. 
The  result  was  that  Gratian  denied  an  audience  to  the 
pagan  senators.4  He  refused  to  rescind  his  decrees  which 
robbed  paganism  of  state  support  in  the  West,  and  af- 
fronted the  devotees  of  the  ancient  protectrice  of  the  Roman 
world.  He  did  not,  however,  take  any  steps  to  abolish 
pagan   cults.5      He   did   not   prohibit   sacrifices    nor   cere- 

1  Boissier,  La  Fin  du  Paganisme,  vol.  ii,  p.  302;  Cf.  Allard,  op.  cit., 
p.  254. 

2  There  is  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  Roman  Senate  at 
this  time  had  a  Christian  or  pagan  majority.  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p. 
119,  relying  upon  St.  Ambrose's  statement,  Ep.  17,  9,  believes  the 
Christians  were  in  the  majority. 

3  Ambrose,  Ep.  17,  10;  Sym.,  Relatio  i,  280,  22  and  283,  32. 
*  Cf.,  O.  Gerhard,  Der  Streit  um  den  Altar  der  Victoria. 

5  It  is  probable  that  the  law  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  7,  forbidding  sacrifices 
by  day  or  by  night  for  the  object  of  consulting  the  future,  given  in 
the  East  had  its  parallel  in  the  West  under  Gratian.  For  in  granting 
a  general  pardon  for  Eastertide,  C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  6,  cf.  C.  S.,  7,  Gratian 
particularly  includes  magicians  among  a  small  group  of  notorious  of- 
fenders who  are  not  to  enjoy  this. 


453]  GRATIAN  AND  THEODOSIUS  IO_5 

monies; 1  he  simply  denied  financial  support  for  these  pur- 
poses. Nevertheless,  Allard 2  declares  that  the  actions 
against  the  Altar  of  Victory  and  the  religious  colleges, 
reduced  paganism  in  the  Occident  to  a  private  cult,  free  to 
live,  but  no  longer  supported  by  the  state — that  Gratian 
broke  the  bonds  between  the  state  and  paganism. 

Meanwhile  Gratian's  colleague,  Theodosius,  had  been  ac- 
tively legislating  in  religious  matters.3  In  January,  380,  he 
was  taken  dangerously  ill  at  Thessalonica  and  there  bap- 
tized. In  February  he  addressed  his  remarkable  law  on 
the  orthodox  faith  to  the  people  of  Constantinople.4 

In  the  same  year  he  prohibited  criminal  suits  during  the 
forty  days  before  Easter 5  and  passed  many  other  laws 
showing  his  lively  interest  in  Christianity.6  Nevertheless 
curials  who  wished  to  become  clergymen  must  first  relin- 
quish their  patrimony.7  The  series  of  laws  published 
against  apostates  has  been  referred  to  above.  Christians 
who  became  pagans  or  who  visited  altars  and  temples  8  lost 
the  right  to  make  a  will. 

1  Cf.  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  93  and  127.  2  Op.  cit.,  p.  255. 

s  His  first  religious  legislation  had  to  do  with  the  perpetuation  of  an 
old  pagan  ceremony;  in  379  he  granted  the  superintendent  of  public 
games,  in  Antioch,  the  privilege  of  cutting  down  one  cypress  tree 
in  the  grove  of  Daphne,  provided  he  planted  more  in  its  place, 
C.  Th.,  x,  1,  12.  The  boughs  of  these  cypress  trees  were  borne  in 
festive  processions  in  honor  of  Apollo.  Private  individuals  were  not 
permitted  to  cut  trees  in  this  grove.  Arcadius  and  Honorius  with- 
drew the  privilege  granted  to  the  superintendent  of  public  games. 
C.  /.,  xi,  77,  r. 

*  C.  Th.,  xvi,  1,  2;  C.  J.,  i,  1,  1.  Cf.  Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  iv;  Theod.,  bk. 
v,  ch.  ii.  Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  25  or  C.  /.,  ix,  29,  1,  which  Godefroy  holds 
to  be  part  of  C.  Th.,  xvi,  1,  2,  but  which  Rauschen,  p.  68,  believes  an 
independent  enactment. 

5  C.  Th.,  ix,  35,  4.  6  C.  Tli.,  xv,  7,  4;  cf.  xv,  7,  8;  xvi,  2,  26. 

7  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  104;  cf.  123  and  Ambrose,  Ep.  18. 

8  C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  1 ;  2,  3.     For  texts  vide  infra,  p.  197. 


I96  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [454 

As  regards  paganism,  Theodosius  made  no  attacks  upon 
it  during  Gratian's  lifetime.  He  did  indeed  forbid  sacri- 
fices for  purposes  of  divination;1  and  while  he  ordered 
the  commander  of  Osdroena,  a  district  of  which  Edessa 
was  the  chief  city,  to  see  that  temples  were  kept  open  and 
the  people  permitted  to  visit  them  2  he  stipulated  that  the 
prohibited  sacrifices  were  not  to  be  allowed  there  on  the 
occasion  of  these  visits. 

A.    CONCERNING   DIVINATION 

Sacrifice  for  the  Purpose  of  Divination  Forbidden 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  7.      381  Dec.  21. 

The  Emperors  Gratian,  Valentinian  and  Theodosius  Au- 
gusti  to  Florus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

If  any  one  insanely  and  sacrilegiously  betakes  himself 
to  the  forbidden  daily  or  nightly  sacrifices  to  consult  the 
future,  or  thinks  that  he  should  appropriate  a  shrine  or  tem- 
ple, or  thinks  of  going  to  one  for  that  purpose  let  him  know 
that  he  is  liable  to  proscription,  since  we  give  warning  by 
our  just  decree  that  God  ought  to  be  worshiped  with  pure 
prayers  and  not  profaned  by  abominable  incantations. 

Given  on  the  twenty-first  of  December  at  Constantinople 
in  the  consulships  of  Eucherius  and  Syagrius. 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  7.  For  text  vide  infra.  This  is  sometimes  wrongly 
called  Theodosius'  first  law  against  paganism. 

2  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  8.    For  text  vide  infra,  p.  198. 

s  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  93,  calls  this  a  law  of  Theodosius.  There 
seems  no  reason  to  believe  it  did  not  apply  to  the  West  as  well  as 
the  East. 


455]  GRATIAN  AND  THEODOSIUS  197 

B.    APOSTASY 
1.  Wilis  of  Apostate  Christians  to  be  Set  Aside 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  1.     May  2,  381. 

The  Emperors  Gratian,  Valentinian  and  Theodosius  Au- 
gusti  to  Eutropius,  pretorian  prefect. 

The  right  of  making  a  will  shall  be  taken  from  Christians 
who  become  pagans;  and  if  such  persons  leave  wills,  they 
shall  be  set  aside  without  regard  to  circumstances. 

Given  at  Constantinople  the  second  of  May  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Syagrius  and  Eucherius. 

2.  Directions  for  Bringing  Suits  Against  the  Estates  of  Apostates 

C.  J.,  i,  7,  2.     May  21,  382.1 

The  Emperors  Gratian,  Valentinian  and  Theodosius  to 
Hypatius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

If  any  one  charges  a  deceased  with  injuring  the  Christian 
religion,  or  with  apostasy  from  it,  and  maintains  that  he 
has  visited  the  sacrilegious  rites  of  the  temples  or  gone  over 
to  the  Jewish  worship,  and  therefore  was  incompetent  to 
make  a  will,  he  must  bring  his  own  suit  and  procure  the 
beginning  of  the  trial  of  the  question  within  the  space  of 
five  years,  the  limit  appointed  for  the  bringing  of  unofficial 
suits. 

Given  at  Padua,  the  twenty-first  of  May,  382  under 
the  second  consulate  of  Merobaudes  and  under  that  of 
Saturninus. 

3.  The  Right  to  Bequeath  or  Inherit  Property  Denied  Apostates 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  2.     May  20,  383. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Postumianus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

We  deny  to  Christians  and  the  faithful  who  have  adopted 

pagan  rites  and  religion  all  power  of  making  a  will  in  favor 

1  Cf.  C.  Th.,  ii,  19,  5- 


igS  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4-5 

of  any  person  whatsoever,  in  order  that  they  may  be  with- 
out the  Roman  law.  But  those  who,  as  Christians  or  cate- 
chumens, have  merely  neglected  the  venerated  religion  and 
visited  altars  and  temples,  if  they  have  sons  or  own  brothers, 
that  is  direct  or  legitimate  heirs,  shall  forfeit  the  right  of 
making  a  will  according  to  their  own  choice  for  any  other 
person  whatsoever. 

And  a  like  rule  should  be  observed  in  regard  to  these 
persons  who  may  receive  inheritances.  Except  for  direct 
and  legitimate  bequests  which  may  come  to  them  from  the 
property  of  parents  or  own  brothers,  they  shall,  by  the  judg- 
ment of  our  established  will,  have  no  rights  at  all  in  in- 
heriting by  law  whatever  may  fall  to  them.  Without  doubt 
they  ought  to  be  excluded  not  only  from  all  right  of  making 
a  will  but  even  of  enjoying  a  will  with  the  power  of  ac- 
quiring an  inheritance. 

Given  the  twentieth  of  May  at  Constantinople  in  the 
second  consulship  of  Merobaudes  and  the  first  of  Saturninus. 

4.  The  Right  of  Making  a  Will  Denied  Christians  who  Enter  Temples 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  3.     May  21,  383.1 
The  same  Augusti  to  Hypatius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 
Christians  who  visit  altars  and  temples  shall  be  denied 
the  right  of  making  a  will. 

c.   pro-pagan 

Temples  to  Remain  Open 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  8.     382  Nov.  30. 

The  same  Emperors  to  Palladius,  Commander  of  Os- 
droena. 

By  the  authority  of  the  public  council,  we  decree  that  a 

1  Cf.  C.  /.,  i,  7,  2. 


457]  GRATIAN  AND  THEODOSIUS  199 

building,1  formerly  dedicated  as  a  place  of  assembly  for  the 
multitude  and  now  open  to  the  people  and  said  to  contain 
images  valued  for  their  worth  as  art  rather  than  their  divin- 
ity, shall  remain  open  constantly ;  nor  do  we  suffer  the  im- 
perial rescript  obtained  by  fraud  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
this.  In  order  that  the  temple  may  be  visited  by  city  folk 
and  large  numbers  of  people,  let  your  experience,  on  every 
festal  celebration  of  votive  offerings,  maintain  the  author- 
ity of  our  rescript  and  permit  the  temple  to  remain  open, 
provided  that  prohibited  sacrifices  are  not  allowed  there  on 
the  occasion  of  these  visits. 

Given  the  thirtieth  of  November  at  Constantinople  when 
Antonius  and  Syagrius  were  consuls. 

1  aedem. 


CHAPTER  VI 
Theodosius  and  Valentinian  II 

After  the  death  of  Gratian,  Valentinian  was  accustomed 
to  consult  with  Theodosius  on  all  important  questions,  and 
it  appears  that  Theodosius  exercised  a  constant  oversight 
over  affairs  of  the  West,  particularly  those  of  the  city  of 
Rome.  Theodosius  was  so  clearly  the  guiding  influence 
throughout  the  whole  empire  after  Gratian's  death,  that  we 
shall  make  no  attempt  to  distinguish  the  laws  of  this  period 
as  those  of  Theodosius  or  those  of  Valentinian.  We  shall 
content  ourselves  with  stating  in  some  particular  cases  where 
the  law  was  given,  remembering,  however,  that  while 
Valentinian  was  nominally  the  Emperor  in  the  West,  Theo- 
dosius was  frequently  in  Milan  and  its  neighborhood.  Al- 
though both  Valentinian  and  Theodosius  formally  recog- 
nized the  usurper  Maximus  in  384,  neither  entered  into 
friendly  relations  with  him.  Maximus  was  a  Christian, 
but  was  either  too  busy  to  work  against  paganism  *  or  quite 
willing  to  gain  adherents  among  pagans  by  seeming  to  stand 
for  complete  religious  toleration. 

The  fate  of  Gratian  had  seemed  to  the  pagans  a  judg- 
ment from  the  gods  whose  worship  he  had  attacked,  and 
they  prepared  to  regain  the  lost  ground.2  For  a  time  it 
seemed  as  if  they  were  likely  to  do  so.  Their  hearts  must 
have  beaten  with  high  hopes  when  they  saw  distinguished 
pagans  raised  to  power  in  important  offices  in  the  state. 

1  Schultze,  Untergang,  p.  230. 

2  Ibid. 

200  [458 


459]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTINIAN  2OI 

In  384  Symmachus  1  was  Urban  prefect,  Praetextatus  2 
was  pretorian  prefect  of  the  city  while  Flavianus  3  held 
the  post  of  pretorian  prefect.  Praetextatus  succeeded 
in  having  a  law  passed  384,  restoring  former  possessions 
to  public  buildings,  and  this  law  he  applied  to  temples.  It 
is  probable  however  that  not  much  was  restored  to  the 
temples.  In  the  same  year  another  attempt  was  made  to 
persuade  the  government  to  restore  the  income  to  priest- 
hoods and  Vestal  Virgins  and  to  re-establish  the  Altar  of 
Victory.    Symmachus,  as  Urban  prefect,  was  commissioned 

1  For  a  biographical  sketch  of  Symmachus,  see  Seeck's  Introduction 
to  his  edition  of  Symmachus'  Opera  in  M.  G.  H.  and  Dill,  op.  cit. 
passim,  Rauschen,  op.  cit.  passim.  He  numbered  among  his  friends  con- 
spicuous heathen,  such  as  Praetextatus  and  distinguished  Christians 
as  St.  Ambrose.  He  resigned  the  office  of  U.  P.  3§5  but  was  made 
consul  391.  See  Glover,  Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century,  p. 
155. 

2  Dill  considers  him  probably  the  true  representative  of  the  last 
generation  of  paganism.  A  man  of  exceptional  learning  and  piety, 
his  monument  describes  him  as  augur,  priest  of  Vesta,  priest  of  the 
Sun,  curial  of  Hercules,  devoted  to  Liber  and  the  Eleusinian  deities, 
cleansed  by  the  rite  of  the  taurobolium;  cf.  C.  I.  L.,  vol.  vi,  no.  1779 
and  Macrobius,  Sat.,  i,  1,  who  pays  a  high  tribute  to  his  nobility  of 
character.  His  house  was  the  scene  of  the  Saturnalia.  It  was  he 
who  as  proconsul  of  Achaia  won  Valentinian's  consent  to  except  the 
Eleusinian  mysteries  from  the  ban  pronounced  against  such  rites. 
Cf.  supra,  p.  185.  His  official  position  made  it  necessary  for  him 
to  interfere  in  the  struggle  between  Damasus  and  Ursinus  for  the 
Roman  Episcopate;  see  Am.  Marcel.,  cf.  Glover,  Life  and  Letters, 
p.  163.  He  used  to  say  sarcastically  to  Damasus,  "  Facite  me  Romanae 
ecclesiae  episcopum,  et  ero  protinus  Christianus,"  Jerome,  Contra 
Joannem  Hierosolymit,  c.  8.  He  died  384  when  about  to  enter  the 
consulate.    Cf.  Jerome,  Ep.  i,  23. 

3  He  was  prominent  under  Julian.  In  retirement  under  Valentinian  I, 
he  was  Vicar  of  Africa  under  Gratian.  He  fell  into  disfavor  with 
that  monarch  on  account  of  his  indulgence  to  heretics,  but  in  383 
under  Theodosius  became  prefect  of  Italy.  He  was  again  prefect  in 
391.  For  the  discussion  of  the  probability  of  his  having  been 
prefect  in  389  also,  see  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  150,  337- 


202  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [46o 

to  draw  up  in  the  form  of  a  petition  the  demands  of  the 
Senate.  As  a  result  the  so-called  Third  Relation  x  was  sent 
to  Valentinian  II.  at  Milan.  It  is  a  lofty  and  patriotic 
plea  for  the  restitution  of  the  visible  sign  of  Rome's  ancient 
faith.  Symmachus  makes  a  magnificent  appeal  for  un- 
restricted religious  freedom  for  men  who  all  look  up  to  the 
same  stars.  There  are,  he  says,  more  than  one  path  to  the 
heart  of  the  great  truth  that  all  men  are  seeking  and  men 
should  be  at  liberty  to  choose  their  own  way. 

Ambrose  who  had  already  addressed  Valentinian  2  on  the 
subject  of  the  content  of  the  petition,  begged  to  be  allowed 
to  reply  to  Symmachus.  The  Emperor  permitted  it  and 
the  rejoinder  took  the  form  of  a  letter  to  the  Emperor,3 
which  so  skillfully  disposed  of  Symmachus'  points  that 
Valentinian  refused  to  grant  the  petition.4 

Praetextatus  died  in  384  and  in  the  following  year  Sym- 
machus retired  from  public  life.  In  consequence  the  pagan 
movement  was  much  weakened. 

In  387  Maximus  invaded  Italy  and  Valentinian  fled  to 
Theodosius  in  Thessalonica.  The  Emperor  of  the  East 
took  up  arms  for  Valentinian  and  after  a  two  months'  war 
defeated  Maximus  who  was  beheaded. 

1  Ed.  by  Seeck,  M.  G.  H.,  Eng.  trans,  in  Ambrose's  works  in 
N.  P.  N.  F.;  also  in  Ayer,  A  Source  Book  for  Ancient  Church  History. 

2  Ep.,  17;  cf.,  De  Obitu  Valentinii,  19. 

3  Ep.,  18.  Prudentius  describes  the  whole  affair  in  his  polemic  Contra 
Symmachum,  q.  v.  These  two  books  of  hexameter  verses  were 
published  in  404,  Glover,  Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century,  p. 
271,  agrees  with  Boissier  in  this  connection  that  the  world  was  not 
fully  converted  and  men  of  letters  were  still  heathen  and  Christians 
of  education  longed  for  a  literary  presentment  of  Christianity.  Sym- 
machus' plea  for  the  Altar  of  Victory  was  still  read;  in  the  eyes  of 
people  of  taste,  though  Ambrose  had  outmanoeuvred  the  orator,  his 
reply  was  no  match  in  eloquence  with  the  dignified  appeal  of  the 
pagan. 

*  Cf.,  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  184  et  seq. 


461]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTIN  IAN  203 

It  has  been  said  1  that  Theodosius  passed  more  laws  in 
favor  of  the  Church  than  did  all  of  his  predecessors  to- 
gether, but  that  he  gave  it  no  material  advantages,  A  great 
mass  of  this  ecclesiastical  legislation  had  to  do  with  pro- 
tecting the  orthodox  and  threatening  the  heretics.  Of  the 
twenty-two  laws  2  concerning  curials  that  were  passed  be- 
tween the  time  of  the  death  of  Gratian  and  that  of  Valen- 
tinian  II,  many  have  to  do  with  the  problem  of  curials  who 
desired  to  become  clergymen.3 

In  386  Sunday  was  made  a  legal  holiday.4  Three  years 
later  it  was  decreed  that  for  forty  days  before  Easter  no 
corporal  punishments  should  be  inflicted.5  In  392  Sunday 
circuses  were  prohibited  6  and  in  the  same  year  the  first  law 
making  churches  sanctuary  for  public  debtors  was  set 
forth,7  and  another  enactment  suspended  all  judicial  busi- 
ness during  the  fifteen  days  of  Eastertide.8  Bishops  were 
to  be  tried  in  ecclesiastical  courts,9  and  it  was  definitely 
stipulated  who  could  become  a  deaconess.10 

Divination  and  sorcery  were  prohibited  during  the  rule  of 
Theodosius  and  Valentinian.  A  law  was  passed  in  385  " 
at  Constantinople  forbidding  sacrifices  for  divination.    Four 

1  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  263. 

2C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  104-125  inclusive. 

3  C.  Th.,  xii,  I,  104,  Nov.  383;  xii,  1,  115,  Dec.  386;  xii,  1,  121,  June 
390;  xii,  1,  123,  July  391. 

4  C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  18;  also  given  under  viii,  8,  3  and  xi,  7,  13  "  Solis  die 
quern  dominicum  rite  dixere  majores,"  etc. 

5C.  Th.,ix,  35,  5- 

6  C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  20;  April. 

'  C.  Th.,  ix,  45,  1 ;  October. 

8  C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  21 ;  May  27. 

9  C.  S.,  3. 

10  C.  Th.,  xvi,  2,  2"j. 
11  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  9.     Vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  209.' 


204  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [462 

years  later  1  sorcery  was  condemned  at  Rome.  At  Milan 
in  384  it  had  been  decreed  that  sorcerers  should  not  enjoy 
the  benefit  of  a  general  pardon  2  and  at  the  same  place  a 
year  later  it  was  laid  down  that  Easter  pardons  should  not 
apply  to  magicians.3  Severe  laws  penalizing  apostates  were 
published  in  391  at  Concordia,  addressed,  curiously  enough, 
to  the  pagan  pretorian  prefect,  Flavianus.4 

Turning  now  to  our  chief  interest,  the  attitude  of  the 
government  towards  paganism  we  find  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  period  that  temples  were  open  and  well  cared  for  and 
pagan  festivals  given ;  for  in  386,  a  law  was  directed  to  the 
pretorian  prefect  of  Egypt,  commanding  him  to  cease 
appointing  any  but  pagans  to  care  for  the  temples  and 
festivals,5 

According  to  Allard  it  was  between  381  and  385  or  after 
the  second  date  that  Cynegius  was  sent  on  his  mission  to 
Egypt 6  and  Asia  Minor  to  crush  Hellenism. 

In  389,  paganism  suffered  a  severe  blow  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  famous  Serapeum  in  Alexandria.  This  was  one 
of  the  most  illustrious  temples  in  the  Roman  Empire  and 
its  destruction  is  of  great  significance.7  But  even  more 
drastic  measures  were  to  follow.     In  391  two  laws  were 

1  C.  TIi.,  ix,  16,  11,  Vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  210. 

2  C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  7,  vide  infra,  p.  210,  for  text. 

3  C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  8,  vide  infra,  p.  211,  for  text;  cf.,  C.  S.,  8. 

4  C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  4-5,  vide  infra,  pp.  213  et  seq.,  for  text. 

5  C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  112,  vide  infra,  p.  218,  for  text. 

6  Op.  cit.,  p.  270.  Cf.  Zos.,  bk.  iv,  p.  116  and  Soc.,  bk.  v,  ch.  xvi. 
Allard ,  p.  270,  criticizes  Zosimus'  statement  that  Cynegius  was  ordered 
to  close  all  the  Egyptian  temples.  He  believes  that  Cynegius  probably 
received  the  instruction  to  close  those  temples  where,  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  381  and  385,  divination  was  practised. 

7  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  301  et  seq.,  also  pp.  534  et  seq.,  for  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  date  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  Cf.  Soc,  bk.  v, 
ch.  xvi  and  Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xv. 


463]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTINIAN  205 

published,  one  addressed  to  the  pretorian  prefect  and  given 
at  Milan,  the  other  addressed  to  the  prefect  and  the  count 
of  Egypt  and  given  at  Aquileia,1  forbidding  men  to  sacri- 
fice, to  visit  temples  or  to  worship  idols.  Heavy  penalties 
were  fixed  for  officials  who  failed  to  punish  breaches  of 
these  laws.  The  second  law  furthermore  declared  the 
temples  closed.  By  this  legislation  paganism  was  outlawed, 
the  machinery  of  the  pagan  cults  was  forbidden  to  be  used. 
A  year  later  Theodosius  was  to  amplify  these  prohibitions 
in  a  longer  document  reiterating  the  legal  ban  on  heathen 
religions. 

In  391,  when  Flavianus  was  pretorian  prefect  and  Sym- 
machus  consul,  the  latter  was  commissioned  by  the  Senate 
to  petition  Theodosius  for  the  re-erection  of  the  altar  to 
Victory.  The  pagan  advocate  this  time  was  hurried  from 
the  imperial  presence  and  set  down  at  the  hundredth  mile 
stone  from  Milan. 

Valentinian's  youth  made  it  seem  wise  to  set  an  older 
man  of  military  experience  near  him,  and  for  this  reason 
Theodosius  made  Arbogastes,  a  Frank  who  had  served  un- 
der Gratian  and  Theodosius  himself,  Master  General  of 
the  Armies  of  Gaul,  after  the  defeat  of  Maximus.  Gradu- 
ally Arbogastes  acquired  all  the  real  power  in  the  West  and 
Valentinian's  position  became  that  of  a  dependent,  if  not  a 
captive.  Valentinian's  attempts  to  rid  himself  of  his  hated 
servant  who  held  the  reins  of  government  were  fruitless. 
May  15,  392,  Valentinian  was  found  strangled,  probably 
with  the  knowledge,  if  not  by  the  order  of  Arbogastes. 
Fifteen  days  before  his  tragic  end,  the  Emperor  had  re- 
pulsed a  pagan  deputation  from  Gaul  begging  that  the  altar 
of  Victory  be  restored.2 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  10,  11,  vide  infra,  p.  215,  for  texts. 

2  Ambrose,  Ep.  57.    Valentinian  remained  firm  without  any  interven- 
tion of  Ambrose  on  this  occasion.     See  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  361. 


206  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [464 

After  Valentinian's  death  Arbogastes  persuaded  Eugenius 
to  allow  himself  to  be  made  Emperor  in  the  West.  It  is 
difficult  to  determine  to  what  religion  Eugenius  himself  be- 
longed,1 but  he  believed  in  the  value  of  divination  and  in 
his  government  wanted  to  maintain  a  system  of  parity  be- 
tween Christianity  and  paganism.  The  Senate  made  a 
couple  of  attempts  to  have  the  altar  of  Victory  restored 
and  the  subsidies  re-established  for  the  priesthoods.  After 
refusing  the  latter  petition  twice  he  seems  to  have  yielded 
so  far  as  to  grant  the  members  of  the  deputation,  as  private 
individuals,  the  property  of  temples  as  gifts,  and  to  have 
allowed  Flavianus  to  set  up  the  Victory  and  to  restore  their 
income  to  the  priesthoods.2  This  was  taken  by  Rome  as 
the  signal  of  the  restoration  of  paganism.  Christian  au- 
thors of  the  time  were  scandalized.  One  whose  name  has 
been  lost  has  left  the  record  of  his  sad  and  horrified  amaze- 
ment in  the  poem  known  as  Carmen  codicis  Parisini.3  He 
tells  how  Egyptian  priests  were  again  encountered  in  the 
streets,  how  processions  to  Cybele  with  Senators  accom- 
panying her  chariot  wound  through  the  city.  The  festival 
of  Flora  was  re-established  and  the  procession  of  Ambur- 
bium,  which  Rome  had  not  seen  since  the  time  of  Aurelian, 
was  again  carried  on.4  The  soul  of  this  pagan  revival  was 
Flavianus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

In  November  of  the  very  year  in  which  paganism  was 
displaying  this  strength  in  Rome,  Theodosius  at  Constanti- 

1  ,Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xxii,  calls  him  insincere.  Schultze,  Untergang, 
p.  281,  calls  him  a  Christian  as  does  Allard.  Hodgkin,  Theodosius, 
p.  109,  believes  him  a  pagan.  Gibbon,  vol.  iii,  p.  180,  declares  he  pro- 
fessed Christianity  but  was  secretly  attached  to  paganism. 

2  Ambrose,  Ep.  57  and  61;  Paulin.  Vita,  26;  cf.  Dill,  op.  cit.,  ch.  ii. 

3  A  Latin  poem  written  ca.  394  in  Hermes  Zeitschrift  fur  Classische 
Philologie,  1869,  ed.  by  Mommsen,  also  by  Morel,  Revue  Archeo- 
logique,  1868. 

4  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  369. 


465]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTIN  IAN  207 

nople  published  a  decree,1  proscribing  both  official  and 
private  observance  of  pagan  rites.  Bloody  sacrifices  were 
sternly  prohibited.2  Even  the  burning  of  incense  to  idols 
or  the  winding  of  a  tree  with  fillets  was  forbidden.  The 
government's  determination  to  eradicate  paganism  is  patent 
in  the  clauses  forbidding  men  to  observe  the  pagan  rites  of 
private  religion  within  their  own  gates.  A  householder's 
intimate  devotion  to  the  lares,  the  penates  and  the  genius  of 
the  house  were  all,  like  the  more  public  acts  of  his  private 
religion,  made  legal  offenses.  Penalty  was  even  fixed  for 
the  man  whose  property  had  been  used  for  forbidden  rites 
without  his  knowledge.  This  decree  of  November  8,  392 
is  an  elaboration  of  the  two  decrees  of  the  previous  year,3 
and  with  them  marks  the  beginning  of  what  became  the  un- 
interrupted policy  of  the  government:  the  proscription  of 
paganism.4 

In  393  Theodosius  was  ready  to  begin  war  against  Eu- 
genius  and  Arbogastes.  The  deciding  battle  of  the  conflict 
occurred  394  on  the  river  Frigidus  to-day  called  Wippach, 
not  far  from  Aquileia.  Eugenius  was  captured  and  be- 
headed. Arbogastes  fled  but  committed  suicide  when  he 
found  himself  closely  followed  by  his  enemies.  Flavianus 
also'  committed  suicide. 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  12.      Vide  infra,  p.  216,  for  text.      Cf.  Rauschen, 
P-  375- 
5  At  this  very  time  Flavianus  underwent  the  taurobolium. 

3  Vide  supra,  p.  215. 

*  The  law  was  evidently  intended  for  the  whole  Roman  world. 
Paganism  found  its  last  stronghold  in  the  many  private  sanctuaries, 
in  the  garden  chapels  to  the  Fortune  of  the  house  or  family.  These 
Theodosius  outlawed.  St.  Augustine,  Ep.  93,  has  recorded  the  result  of 
this  law,  "pagani  nos  blasphemare  possunt  de  legibus,  quas  contra 
idolorum  cultores  Christiani  imperatores  tulerunt,  et  tamen  ex  eis 
multi  correcti  et  ad  deum  vivum  verumque  conversi  sunt  et  quotidie 
convertuntur."  And  Ep.  36  written  in  the  year  397,  "  ecclesiam  toto 
terrarum  orbe  diffusam  exceptis  Romanis  et  adhuc  paucis  orientalibus." 


2o8  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [466 

All  the  Christian  world  seemed  to  recognize  in  the  fall  of 
Eugenius  a  judgment  of  God  and  the  triumph  of  Theo- 
dosius'  orthodoxy.1  The  pagans  saw  their  last  hope  shat- 
tered and  many  turned  to  the  Church.2  Zosimus  3  says  that 
after  the  defeat  of  Eugenius  the  Emperor  went  to  Rome 
and  there  insulted  the  religion  of  the  gods ;  and  before  his 
departure  convoked  the  conscript  fathers  and  appealed  to 
them  to  abandon  the  errors  of  paganism  and  to  accept  the 
faith  which  promised  absolution  from  sin.  According  to 
Zosimus  his  petition  was  ineffectual.4 

1  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  431.  *  Ibid. 

3  Bk.  v,  p.  163,  "  when  the  elder  Theodosius  after  defeating  the  rehel 
Eugenius,  arrived  at  Rome  and  occasioned  in  all  persons  a  contempt 
and  neglect  of  divine  worship,  by  refusing  to  defray  the  charge  of  the 
holy  rites  from  the  public  funds,  the  priests  of  both  sexes  were  dis- 
missed and  banished  and  the  temples  were  deprived  of  sacrifices. 
Serena,  insulting  the  deities  with  derision,  was  determined  to  see  the 
temple  dedicated  to  the  mother  of  the  gods.  In  this  perceiving  some 
ornaments  around  the  statue  of  Rhea,  suitable  to  the  divine  worship 
that  was  paid  to  her,  she  took  them  off  the  statue  and  placed  them 
upon  her  own  neck.  An  aged  woman,  who  was  the  only  one  re- 
maining of  the  vestal  virgins,  upbraided  her  severely  for  so  impious 
an  action,"  etc.  See  Allard,  op.  cit.,  p.  277,  note  4,  for  a  discussion 
of  Theodosius'  presence  in  Rome  after  the  defeat  of  Eugenius. 
Rutilius  Namantianus,  De  Reditu  Suo,  ii,  46  et  seq.,  says  the  Emperor 
burned  the  Sibylline  books. 

4  Bk.  iv,  p.  129.  "  Before  his  departure  he  convened  the  Senate,  who 
firmly  adhered  to  the  ancient  rites  and  customs  of  their  country,  and 
could  not  be  induced  to  join  with  those  who  were  inclined  to  con- 
tempt for  the  gods.  In  an  oration  he  exhorted  them  to  relinquish 
their  former  errors  as  he  termed  them  and  to  embrace  the  Christian 
faith  which  promises  absolution  from  all  sins  and  impieties.  But  not 
a  single  individual  of  them  would  be  persuaded  to  this,  nor  recede 
from  the  ancient  ceremonies  which  had  been  handed  down  to  them 
from  the  building -of  their  city,  and  prefer  to  them  an  irrational 
assent,  having  as  they  said  lived  in  the  observance  of  them  almost  1200 
years,  in  the  whole  space  of  which  their  city  had  never  been  conquered, 
and  therefore  should  they  change  them  for  others,  they  could  not 
foresee  what  might  ensue.  Theodosius,  therefore,  told  them,  that 
the  treasury  was  too  much  exhausted  by  the  expense  of  sacred  rites 


46^]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTINIAN  209 

We  must  not  forget  that  while  intolerance  for  paganism 
became  now  the  government's  attitude,  along  with  it  went 
the  greatest  toleration  for  individual  pagans.  High  honors 
were  paid  the  devotees  of  non-Christian  cults.  Libanius  1 
the  most  passionate  champion  of  paganism  in  the  East,  was 
distinguished  with  place  and  favor. 

On  January  seventeenth,  395,  Theodosius  died  and  his 
two  young  sons  ruled  jointly  over  the  Roman  world. 

A.    CONCERNING  MAGIC  AND  DIVINATION 
1.  Sacrifices  for  the  Purpose  of  Divination  Forbidden 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  9.    385  May  25. 2 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  Cynegius,  the  pretorian  pre- 
fect. 

Let  no  mortal  so  presume  as  to  sacrifice  in  order  to  ac- 
quire the  hope  of  an  empty  promise  that  comes  from  the 
examination  of  liver  or  from  divination  by  entrails ;  or 
what  is  worse,  search  the  future  through  abominable  in- 
quiry. For  the  suffering  of  a  severer  penalty  threaten  all 
who  in  spite  of  the  prohibition,  attempt  to  learn  the  truth 
of  the  present  or  the  future. 

and  sacrifices,  and  that  he  should  therefore  abolish  them  since  he 
neither  thought  them  commendable  nor  could  the  exigencies  of  the 
army  spare  so  much  money.  The  Senate  in  reply  observed,  that  the 
sacrifices  were  not  duly  performed  unless  the  charges  were  defrayed 
from  the  public  funds.  Yet  thus  the  laws  for  the  performance  of 
sacred  rites  and  sacrifices  were  repealed  and  abolished,  besides  other 
institutions  and  ceremonies,  which  had  been  received  from  their  an- 
cestors. By  these  means,  the  Roman  Empire  having  been  devastated 
by  degrees,  is  become  the  habitation  of  barbarians,  or  rather,  having 
lost  all  its  inhabitants  is  reduced  to  such  a  form  that  no  people  can 
distinguish  where  its  cities  formerly  stood."  We  are  ignorant  as  to 
whether  Theodosius  removed  the  Altar  of  Victory  or  allowed  it  to 
remain. 

1  This  distinguished  sophist  has  left  us  in  his  Pro  Templis  one  of 
our  most  interesting  and  valuable  sources  for  the  state  of  paganism 
towards  the  close  of  Theodosius'  reign. 

2Cf.,  C.I.,  i,  11,  2. 


2io  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [468 

Given  at  Constantinople  on  the  twenty-fifth  of  May  in 
the  first  consulship  of  Emperor  Arcadius  when  Bautones 
was  consul  for  the  fifth  time. 

2.  The  Treatment  of  Sorcerers 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  11.     Aug.  16,  389. 1 

The  Emperors  Valentinian,  Theodosius  and  Arcadius 
Augusti  to  Albinus,  the  prefect  of  the  city. 

Whoever  hears  of  or  detects  or  becomes  acquainted  with, 
a  man  polluted  with  the  disease  of  sorcery,  on  the  instant  let 
him  hale  such  a  person  to  the  magistrate  and  show  the 
enemy  of  the  public  weal  to  the  judges. 

But  if  a  charioteer  or  any  other  sort  of  person  attempts 
to  run  counter  to  this  edict  or  makes  way  by  furtive  vio- 
lence with  a  palpable  culprit  in  the  nefarious  art,  he  puts 
himself  under  a  two-fold  suspicion  and  shall  not  escape  the 
extreme  penalty,  because  either  he  has  removed  a  common 
criminal  from  the  law's  severity  and  appropriate  torture, 
lest  he  should  reveal  the  accomplices  of  his  act,  or  possibly, 
for  a  worse  object,  he  has  destroyed  an  enemy  of  his  own 
under  this  guise  of  vengeance. 

Given  the  sixteenth  of  August,  at  Rome  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Timasius  and  Promotus. 

3.  General  Pardons  not  to  Apply  to  Sorcerers 

C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  7.     March  22,  384. 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  the  vicar,  Marcian. 

We  are  impelled  by  the  sanctity  of  our  religious  anniver- 
sary to  order  all  to  be  released  entirely  from  the  danger  of 
prison  and  the  fear  of  punishment  who  are  held  as  guilty 
of  a  minor  crime.  From  this  obviously  they  should  be  ex- 
cepted whom  frightful  passion  has  driven  to  more  bar- 
barous crimes.  In  which  category  is  first  and  foremost: 
the  crime  of  lese-majesty,  then  that  of  homicide,  poisoning, 

1  Cf.,  C.  J.,  ix,  18,  9. 


469]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTIN  IAN  2II 

sorcery,  debauchery,  adultery,  and  with  like  enormity  of 
sacrilege  the  profanation  of  graves,  abduction,  and  debas- 
ing the  coinage. 

Given  the  twenty-second  of  March  at  Milan  during  the 
consulates  of  Richomer  and  Clearchus. 

4.  Easter  Pardons  not  Applicable  to  Magicians 

C.  Th.,  ix,  38,  8.     Feb.  25,  385.1 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  Neoterius,  pretorian  prefect. 

Let  no  one.  wait  for  the  dicta  of  our  perennity  which  may 
be  tardy.  Let  judges  carry  out  the  indulgences  that  we 
have  been  wont  to  grant.  At  the  opening  of  Eastertide, 
prison  is  to  hold  no  one  within  its  walls,  and  all  fetters  are 
to  be  loosed. 

But  we  except  from  these  privileges  those  persons  who, 
if  set  at  large,  would,  we  feel,  contaminate  the  general 
enjoyment  and  happiness.  For  who  would  show  indulgence 
on  holy  days  to  sacrilegious  men  or  who  would  pardon  an 
adulterer  or  one  guilty  of  incest  during  a  time  of  purity? 
Who  would  not  punish  more  severely  during  a  time  of  the 
greatest  peace  and  joy  an  abductor?  He  shall  enjoy  no 
respite  from  chains  who  with  the  cruelty  of  crime  has  not 
allowed  the  dead  to  rest  in  peace  in  their  grave ;  the  poisoner, 
the  magician,  the  debaser  of  coin  shall  suffer  torture;  the 
homicide  may  expect  what  he  has  himself  done;  the  man 
guilty  of  treason  need  not  hope  for  indulgence  from  the 
lord  against  whom  he  attempted  such  a  deed. 

Given  the  twenty-fifth  of  February,  at  Milan  in  the  first 
consulship  of  Arcadius  Augustus  and  the  fifth  of  Bautones. 

5.  General  Pardons  not  to  Apply  to  Astrologers  and  Magicians 

Constitutiones  Sirmondianae.    Number  8.    April  22,  386. 
The  Emperors  Valentinian,  Theodosius  and  Arcadius. 

1  Cf.,  C.  J.,  i,  4,  3- 


212  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [470 

The  time  desired  by  good  men  approaches  our  serenity 
when  even  beyond  the  practice  of  statutory  annual  leniency 
for  promulgating  customary  indulgence,  we  are  ever  ani- 
mated by  natural  benevolence.  For  never  is  it  more  fitting 
for  imperial  piety  to  show  equity  by  deeds  of  charity  than 
when  throughout  almost  the  whole  world  the  sacred  day  is 
celebrated  with  solemn  festival.  And  we  indeed  beyond  the 
traditionally  prescribed  clemency  for  the  observation  of  re- 
ligion, give  expression  to  our  sacred  will  spreading  our  hu- 
manity far  and  wide,  to  liberate  almost  all  who  are  bound 
by  the  severity  of  the  law. 

For  from  now  on  until  the  special  days  that  are  to  be 
celebrated,  we  free  from  chains,  we  recall  from  exile,  we 
release  from  the  mines,  we  excuse  from  deportation,  since  it 
is  right  that  there  should  be  hardly  a  clay  when  we  do  not 
order  some  act  of  mercy  and  righteousness  believing  that 
we  also  suffer  harm  as  the  hours  pass  if  it  chance  that  no 
one  is  set  free. 

Wherefore  it  is  readily  seen  that  we  always  seize  upon 
that  need  for  loosening  laws  as  far  as  true  humanity  suf- 
fers it  and  we  continue  the  voluntary  sanctity  to  the  utmost 
limits  of  the  season.  For  it  is  not  fitting  that  dissonant 
voices  of  the  wretched  break  in  upon  the  festive  ceremonies 
and  the  venerated  rites  of  the  sacred  time  or  that  criminals 
with  rough  dishevelled  hair,  exciting  the  pity  of  all  be 
dragged  to  their  death;  nor  that  groans  wrung  from  the 
depths  of  a  man's  heart  should  be  heard  when  everywhere 
the  sacred  and  the  joyous  go  well  together.  And  it  is  not 
seemly  that  anything  sad  should  be  felt,  heard  or  seen  in 
the  midst  of  tranquil  vows  and  pious  voices  consecrated  to 
divine  majesty.  Wherefore  we  do  not  suppress  our  leniency 
known  by  our  former  favors,  but  we  open  the  prison,  knock 
off  the  chains  and  will  remove  in  all  decency  the  unkempt 
tenant  of  the  filthy  and  dusky  prison  house.     We  will  save 


47 1  ]  ri-IEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTIN  IAN  213 

all  from  capital  punishment  except  those  whose  crimes  are 
too  great  to  admit  of  it. 

These  crimes  shall  meet  their  fate  and  shall  be  excepted 
from  the  general  pardon  and  the  proper  end  shall  overtake 
the  guilty.  We  will  do  injustice  to  no  one's  shade  by  ab- 
solving murderers.  We  do  not  leave  any  one's  bed  un- 
avenged by  remitting  penalties  of  adulterers  or  similar  crim- 
inals. We  reserve  unaffected  the  case  of  lese-majesty  which 
has  wide  effects.  We  do  not  admit  to  the  good  fortune  of 
pardon  astrologers,  poisoners,  magicians  nor  counterfeiters ; 
for  indeed,  they  are  not  worthy  to  enjoy  the  festive  light 
who  have  committed  crimes  so  grave  that  it  is  not  proper 
that  prudent  clemency  should  pardon  them. 

And  in  order  not  to  direct  my  happy  discourse  further 
to  this  series  of  crimes,  we  release  all  except  customary  and 
notorious  criminals,  dearest  and  most  delightful  Antio- 
chinus.  Wherefore  your  worthiness  will  order  the  decrees 
of  our  clemency  to  be  fulfilled  as  quickly  as  possible  so  that 
the  joyful  news  may  more  rapidly  be  spread  abroad ;  that 1 
those  who  deserve  to  be  set  free  in  the  general  festivity 
shall  not  be  hung. 

Given  at  Constantinople  the  twenty-second  of  April  when 
Honorius  the  very  noble  boy  and  Evagrius  were  consuls. 

B.    APOSTASY 
1.  Testamentary  Disqualification  for  Christian  Apostates 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  4.     May  11,  391. 

The  Emperors  Valentinian,  Theodosius  and  Arcadius, 
Augusti  to  Flavianus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Those  who  betray  the  sacred  faith  and  profane  holy  bap- 
tism are  shut  off  from  association  with  all  and  from  giving 

1  Neque  substituted  for  adque  on  Mommsen's  suggestion.  iSee 
Rauschen,  p.  233  for  the  question  of  the  validity  of  this  law. 


2i4  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [472 

testimony.  As  we  have  hitherto  decreed  they  may  not  ex- 
ercise the  right  of  making  a  will;  they  may  not  enter  upon 
any  inheritance ;  they  may  not  be  made  any  one's  heir. 

We  would  even  have  commanded  that  they  be  sent  to  a 
distant  place  and  exiled  there  if  it  did  not  seem  to  be  a 
greater  punishment  to  remain  among  men  and  yet  to  be 
deprived  of  the  rights  of  men. 

But  they  are  never  to  revert  to  their  earlier  state ;  nor  is 
the  shame  of  the  deeds  wiped  out  by  penitence;  neither  is 
any  shadow  of  a  defense  or  excuse,  (however  carefully 
sought)  to  be  advanced,  for  things  which  are  devised  and 
arranged  cannot  succor  those  who  have  polluted  the  faith 
which  they  gave  to  God  and  who  have  left  the  divine 
mystery  and  gone  over  to  profane  ones. 

For  both  the  fallen  and  erring  can  be  cured ;  but  the  lost, 
that  is  those  who  profane  holy  baptism,  can  be  cured  by  no 
medicine  of  penitence  which  is  efficacious  for  other  crimes. 

Given  the  eleventh  of  May  at  Concordia  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Tatianus  and  Symmachus.1 

2.  Apostates  to  Lose  Position  and  Rank 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  5.     May  11,  391. 

The  same  Emperors  to  Flavianus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Any  honor  or  dignity  belonging  either  by  birth  or  pre- 
ferment to  those  men  who  through  the  inconstancy  of  their 
faith  or  the  blindness  of  their  minds  have  fallen  away  from 
the  worship  and  reverence  of  the  most  holy  religion  and 
given  themselves  over  to  sacrifices,  shall  be  lost.  Thus  they 
shall  be  degraded  from  their  place  and  station  and  suffer 
perpetual  infamy  and  shall  be  reckoned  not  even  among  the 
meanest  part  of  the  vulgar  herd. 

For  what  can  these  have  in  common  with  other  men  who 

1  This  law  is  given  also  in  xi,  39,  11.     Cf„  C.  J.,  i,  7-  3- 


473  ]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTIN  I  AN  2I$ 

in  the  abomination  of  their  dead  minds  hate  the  grace  of 
communion  and  withdraw  themselves  from  men. 

Given  at  Concordia  on  the  eleventh  of  May  in  the  con- 
sulships of  Tatianus  and  Symmachus. 

C.    ANTI-PAGAN 
1.  Sacrificing  and  Visiting  Shrines  Prohibited 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  10.     Feb.  24,  391. 

The  same  three  xAugusti  to  Albinus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Let  no  one  defile  himself  with  animal  sacrifices;  let  no 
one  slaughter  an  innocent  victim;  let  on  one  visit  shrines; 
let  everyone  instead,  purify  the  temple;  let  him  distrust 
images  made  by  human  art  lest  he  be  judged  a  criminal  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinance  of  God  and  man. 

This  rescript  is  for  the  guidance  of  judges:  if  any  one 
of  them  given  over  to  the  unholy  usage,  enter  a  temple  to 
worship  when  travelling  anywhere  or  while  in  the  city,  he 
himself  shall  be  forced  at  once  to  pay  15  pounds  of  gold 
and  with  like  expedition,  his  officials  shall  be  fined  a  similar 
sum,  if  they  have  not  withstood  that  judge  and  at  once 
reported  it  openly.  Men  of  consular  rank  shall  pay  six 
times  as  much,  their  officials  a  similar  amount,  bailiffs  and 
governors,  correctores  and  praesides  four  times  as  much; 
their  public  servants  by  the  same  rule  shall  pay  a  like  sum. 

Given  the  twenty-fourth  of  February  at  Milan  in  the  con- 
sulships of  Tatianus  and  Symmachus. 

2.  Sacrifices  Forbidden  and  Temples  Closed 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  11.     June  16,  391. 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  Evagrius,  the  Augustalian  pre- 
fect and  to  Romanus,  count  of  Egypt. 

To  no  one  shall  the  right  of  sacrificing  be  given,  nor  shall 
anyone  go  the  rounds  of  the  temples  nor  do  honor  to  the 
shrines.     Let  them  recognize  that  the  profane  approaches 


2i6  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [474 

are  closed  by  our  law,  so  that  if  any  one  attempt  anything 
which  is  forbidden  touching  the  gods  or  worship  let  him  be 
fully  aware  that  he  shall  be  punished  without  mercy. 

Likewise  any  judge,  who'  during  his  term  of  office,  rely- 
ing upon  the  privilege  of  his  power,  has  like  a  sacrilegious 
violator  entered  these  polluted  places  shall  pay  15  pounds 
of  gold;  and  his  officials  shall  assuredly  pay  a  like  sum  to 
our  treasury  unless  they  forcibly  opposed  the  deed. 

Given  at  Aquileia  the  sixteenth  of  June,  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Tatianus  and  Symmachus. 

3.  Paganism  outlawed  by  Theodosius 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  12.     Nov.  8,  392. 1 

The  Emperors  Theodosius,  Arcadius  and  Honorius  Au- 
gusti  to  Rufinus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

No  official  or  dignitary  of  whatsoever  class  or  rank 
among  men,  whether  he  be  powerful  by  fortune  of  birth  or 
humble  in  the  condition  of  his  family,  shall  in  any  place  or 
in  any  city  slay  an  innocent  victim  for  sacrifice  to  senseless 
idols,  or  in  more  secret  rite,  honor  the  lares  with  fire,  the 
genius  of  the  house  with  pure  wine,  the  penates  with  sweet 
odors  and  light  the  lamps,  offer  the  incense  and  hang  up 
the  garlands. 

But  if  any  one  in  order  to  make  a  sacrifice  dares  to  offer 
a  victim  or  to  consult  the  quivering  entrails,  let  any  man  be 
free  to  accuse  him  and  let  him  receive  as  one  guilty  of  lese- 
majesty,  a  fitting  punishment  for  an  example,  even  if  he 
have  sought  nothing  contrary  to,  or  involving  the  welfare 
of,  the  authorities.  For  it  is  sufficiently  a  crime  to  wish  to 
undo  nature's  laws  and  to  investigate  what  is  forbidden,  to 
lay  bare  secrets,  to  handle  things  prohibited,  to  look  for  the 
end  of  another's  prosperity  or  to  predict  another's  ruin. 

1  For  the  effects  of  this  law  vide  Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xx  and  Aug.  Ep. 
36  and  93. 


,yc]  THEODOSIUS  AND  VALENTINIAN  2IJ 

But  if  anyone  worship  with  incense  idols  made  by  human 
toil  and  enduring  for  a  generation,  and  foolishly  fearing  on 
a  sudden  his  own  handiwork,  seeks  to  do  reverence  to  vain 
images,  winding  a  tree  with  fillets  or  erecting  an  altar  or 
turf  (for  although  the  worth  of  the  gift  be  slight,  yet  the 
injury  to  religion  is  great)  let  him  be  judged  a  violator  of 
religion  and  a  fine  be  levied  on  the  house  or  the  estate  in 
which  he  is  proved  to  have  committed  the  deed  of  heathen 
superstition.  For  every  place  where  the  smoke  of  incense 
has  ascended,  provided  that  these  places  are  proved  in  law 
to  be  the  property  of  those  who  offered  the  incense,  shall  be 
appropriated  to  the  fisc. 

But  if  anyone  has  sought  to  make  such  a  sacrifice  in 
public  temples  or  shrines  or  in  buildings  or  in  fields  belong- 
ing to  some  one  else,  if  it  be  proved  that  the  place  was  used 
without  the  owner's  knowledge,  he  shall  pay  a  line  of  25 
pounds  of  gold ;  and  the  same  penalty  for  the  man  who  con- 
nives at  this  crime  or  who  makes  the  sacrifice. 

This  statute  we  wish  to  be  observed  by  judges,  defensors 
and  curials  of  every  city  so  that  offenses  discovered  by  the 
latter  may  be  reported  to  the  courts  and  there  punished  by 
the  former.  But  if  they  think  anything  may  be  concealed 
by  favor  or  passed  over  by  negligence,  let  them  be  subjected 
to  judicial  action ;  but  if  the  former  being  warned,  postpone 
giving  sentence  and  dissimulate,  they  shall  be  fined  30 
pounds  of  gold  and  members  of  their  court  shall  be  sub- 
jected to  a  like  penalty. 

Given  the  eighth  of  November  at  Constantinople  in  the 
second  consulate  of  Emperor  Arcadius  when  Rufinus  was 
also  consul.1 

1  For  the  effects  of  this  law  vide  Soz.,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xx  and  Aug.  Ep., 
36  and  93. 


2i8  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [476 

D.    PRO-PAGAN 

Pagans  only  to  be  appointed  as  chief  priests 

C.  Th.,  xii,  1,  112.    June  16,  386. 

The  same  three  Augusti  to  Florentius,  the  Augustalian 
prefect. 

In  appointing  a  chief  priest,  that  man  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred who  has  done  the  most  for  his  country  and  yet  has 
not  abandoned  the  worship  of  the  temples  for  the  ob- 
servance of  Christianity.  Indeed  it  is  unfitting,  nay  to 
speak  more  plainly,  it  is  wrong  that  the  temples  and  the 
rites  of  the  temples  should  come  into  the  care  of  those 
whose  mind  has  been  enlightened  with  the  true  reason  of 
divine  religion  and  who  ought  to  avoid  such  an  office  even 
if  it  were  not  closed  to  them.  Sent  out  the  sixteenth  of 
June  from  Constantinople  when  Honorius  and  Evodius 
were  consuls. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Honorius,  Arcadius,  Theodosius  II  and  Valen- 

TINIAN    III 

Before  his  death,  Theodosius  had  designated  his  two 
young  sons,  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  as  his  successors.  He 
had  made  Stilicho,  magister  titriusque  militiae,  for  the 
West  and  had  thus  assured  him  of  the  dignity  equal  to  that 
of  a  pretorian  prefect;  and  had  further  appointed  him  guar- 
dian of  Honorius  who  was  to  rule  in  the  West.  It  is  a  dis- 
puted question  whether  he  was  made  guardian  of  Arcadius 
also.1  Stilicho,  who  was  an  unscrupulous,  able  man,  sought 
to  exercise  unlimited  power  in  the  Occident  and  even  to  ex- 
tend his  sway  over  the  Orient.  Until  his  death  he  was  the 
real  power  in  the  West  and  the  enactments  given  there  be- 
tween 395  and  408  are  the  expression  of  his  policies.  He 
seems  to  have  exercised  moderation  in  religious  affairs  and 
to  have  favored  no  particular  religious  party.2  While  the 
law  proscribing  pagan  rites  still  maintained,3  the  powerful 
minister  decreed  that  pagan  temples  with  their  ornaments 
should  be  preserved  and  pagan  festivities  of  games  and  ban- 
quets permitted.4  After  Stilicho's  death  the  intolerant 
party  in  the  state  got  control  and  the  laws  against  pagan- 

1  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  445. 

2  Cf.  E.  F.  Humphrey,  Politics  and  Religion  in  the  Days  of  Augustine, 
p.  47  et  passim. 

3C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  15,  the  opening  words,  vide  infra,  p.  227;  xvi, 
10,  17,  the  opening  words,  vide  infra,  p.  228;  xvi,  10,  18,  "the 
temples  cleared  of  forbidden  things,  and  "  if  any  one  is  caught  making 
a  sacrifice,  etc.,"  vide  infra,  p.  228. 

4  Ibid. 

477}  2I9 


220  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [478 

ism  were  more  vigorously  enforced;1  and  new  ones  en- 
acted. In  some  places  even  the  ancient  banquets  were  for- 
bidden and  the  statues  removed  from  public  places  and  baths. 

Arcadius  died  in  408  and  as  his  son,  Theodosius,  was 
only  eight  years  old,  Anthemius  acted  as  ruler  for  the 
prince  for  six  years,  when  the  regency  was  assumed  by 
Pulcheria,  the  sister  of  Theodosius,  with  the  title  of  Au- 
gusta. Theodosius  ITs  reign  came  to  an  end  in  450. 
Valentinian  III,  whose  name  appears  on  later  laws  of  this 
period,  was  the  son  of  Placidia,  daughter  of  Theodosius 
the  Great  and  Constantius.  He  succeeded  to  the  rule  over 
the  West  in  425.    Thirty  years  later  he  was  assassinated. 

In  looking  at  the  religious  legislation  of  both  East  and 
West  during  the  generation  following  Theodosius'  death, 
we  find  certain  general  differences.  In  the  East  the  govern- 
ment seemed  less  eager  to  extend  the  privileges  of  bishops 
and  the  clergy  in  general,  than  the  government  in  the  West 
which  confirmed  and  augmented  ecclesiastical  immunities.2 
In  the  East  paganism  was  weakened  and  through  political 
reasons  a  vigorous  policy  was  pursued  against  it.3  In  the 
West,  in  spite  of  the  check,  that  paganism  had  suffered  in 
the  defeat  of  Eugenius'  party,  it  had  the  steady  support  of 
members  of  the  upper  classes  and  Stilicho's  tolerant  atti- 
tude delayed  extreme  measures  against  it.  Although  the 
paramount  interest  of  the  fifth  century  was  the  movement 
of  the  Germans,  particularly  the  Goths,  there  was  taken 
altogether  a  large  body  of  enactments  affecting  pagans. 
Let  us  examine  this  legislation. 

Two  laws  against  magic  both  given  in  the  West  have 
been  preserved.4     In  the  East  as  well  as  the  West  decrees 

1  Vide  infra,  for  texts,  passim. 

2C.  Th.,  xvi,  11,  1;  xvi,  2,  29  et  seq. 

3  See  E.  F.  Humphrey,  Religion   and  Politics  in  the  Days  of  Au- 
gustine, pp.  20-21. 

4  For  texts,  vide  infra,  p.  223. 


479]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  22I 

were  published  against  apostasy.1  Pagan  festivals  were  no 
longer  to  be  counted  among  the  holidays,2  while  Sunday 
games  were  prohibited.3  Only  Catholic  Christians  were  al- 
lowed to  serve  as  soldiers  in  the  palace.4  This  enactment 
of  course  cut  two  ways,  for  by  it  heretics  as  well  as  pagans 
were  affected.  As  for  the  mass  of  legislation  prescribing 
paganism  it  speaks  clearly  for  itself  in  the  appended  laws.5 
A  decree  of  395  6  assures,  in  their  possession,  those  who  have 
acquired  temple  property;  another  law7  two  years  later 
provides  evidence  that  temples  were  being  destroyed. 

The  laws  of  Theodosius  against  sacrifices  and  idols  were 
renewed  in  395. 8 

The  exemptions  remaining  to  pagan  priests  were  sup- 
pressed.9 Rural  temples  were  to  be  destroyed  but  without 
disorder  or  riot.10  While  sacrifices  were  prohibited  the  or- 
naments of  public  buildings  were  to  be  protected,11  and  an- 
cient festivities  permitted,12  and  the  purified  temples  kept 
open.13     Temple  buildings  were  to  be  appropriated  by  the 

1  For  text,  vide  infra,  pp.  224,  225. 

2  C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  22,  vide  infra,  p.  225,  for  text. 

3  C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  23,  309 ;  ii,  8,  25,  409. 

4  C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  42,  vide  infra,  pp.  232,  233,  for  text. 

5  Vide  infra,  pp.  225  et  seq.  6  C.  J.,  xi,  69,  4. 

7  C.  Th.,  xv,  1  ,36.  397  Nov.  r.  Idem  AA.  Asterio  Comiti  Orientis. 
Quoniam  vias,  pontes  per  quos  itinera  celebrantur,  adque  aquaeductus, 
muros  quin  etiam  juvari  provisis  sumptibus  oportere  signasti,  cunctam 
materiam,  quae  ordinata  dicitur  ex  demolitione  templorum,  memoratis 
necessitatibus  deputari  censemus,  quo  ad  perfectionem  cuncta  per- 
veniant.    Dat.  Kal.  Nov.  Caesario  et  Attico  Conss. 

s  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  13,  vide  infra,  for  text,  pp.  225,  226. 

9  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  14,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  226. 

10  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  16,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  227. 

11  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  15,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  227. 

12  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  17,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  228. 

13  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  18,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  228. 


222  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [480 

government  or  the  churches.1  In  the  year  following  this 
law  judges  were  warned  that  they  must  carefully  enforce 
laws  against  pagans  and  heretics.2  Zosimus  says  that  in 
spite  of  the  laws,  Honorius  gave  full  religious  liberty. 
However  a  new  law  of  415  3  seems  to  show  that  if  Zosi- 
mus were  correct,  the  religious  liberty  could  not  have  lasted 
long. 

In  396  the  popular  festival  of  the  Majuma  was  re-estab- 
lished,4 but  three  years  later  was  abolished  for  the  reason 
that  it  was  only  another  name  for  licentiousness.3  Later 
laws  6  reiterated  provisions  in  these  enactments  against  the 
pagans.  The  last  in  this  group  is  that  of  November,  45 1/ 
which  prohibited  sacrifices  and  ordered  temples  and  shrines 
to  be  kept  closed  and  forbade  all  pagan  ritual. 

Although  paganism  was  outlawed  and  its  subsidies  sup- 
pressed and  its  fabric  confiscated  in  these  foregoing  enact- 
ments, pagans  themselves  were  left  undisturbed.  The  gov- 
ernment made  no  attempt  to  force  men  to  become  Chris- 
tians and  a  law  of  423  s  distinctly  forbade  any  one  from 
disturbing  a  pagan  who  was  living  peaceably. 

1  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  19,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  229.  Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi, 
5,  43,  vide  infra,  for  text,  p.  230,  and  C.  S.,  12,  vide  infra,  for  text, 
pp.  230  et  seq. 

-  C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  46,  vide  infra,  p.  233,  for  text. 

3  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  20,  vide  infra,  p.  234,  for  text. 

4  C.  Th.,  xv,  6,  1,  vide  infra,  p.  238,  for  text. 

5  C.  Th.,  xv,  6,  2,  vide  infra,  p.  238,  for  text. 

6  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  21,  22;  xvi,  8,  26;  xvi,  10,  23;  xvi,  5,  63.  C.  S.,  6; 
C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  24. 

7  C.  J.,  i,  11,  7,  vide  infra,  for  text. 

8  C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  24,  vide  infra,  p.  239,  for  text. 


4gj-j  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  223 

A.  CONCERNING  MAGIC  AND  DIVINATION 

1.  Obstinant  Astrologers  to  be  banished  from  Rome 

C.  Th.,  ix,  16,  12.    Feb.  1,  409- 

The  Emperors  Honorius  and  Theodosius  Augusti  to 
Caecilianus,  pretorian  prefect. 

Unless  the  astrologers  are  prepared  to  burn  their  false 
books  before  the  eyes  of  the  bishops  and  to  transfer  their 
faith  to  that  of  the  Catholic  religion  and  never  return  to 
their  errors,  we  ordain  that  they  are  to  be  expelled  not  only 
from  the  city  of  Rome  but  also  from  all  cities.  But  if  they 
do  not  do  this,  and  contrary  to  the  wholesome  decree  of  our 
clemency,  are  discovered  in  the  cities  or  if  they  publish  the 
mysteries  of  their  error  and  profession,  they  shall  suffer 
the  penalty  of  deportation. 

Given  at  Ravenna  the  first  of  February  in  the  eighth  con- 
sulship of  Honorius  and  the  third  of  Theodosius,  the  Au- 
gusti.1 

2.  Astrologers  to  be  driven  out  of  Rome 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  62.    July  17  (Aug.  6),  425- 

The  Emperor  and  Augustus  Theodosius  and  the  Caesar 
Valentinian  to  Faustus,  prefect  of  the  city. 

We  command  that  Manichaeans,  heretics,  schismatics  or 
astrologers  and  every  sect  inimical  to  the  catholics  be 
driven  out  of  the  city  of  Rome,  so  that  it  may  not  be  de- 
filed by  contagion  from  the  presence  of  criminals,  .  .  .  etc. 

Given  the  seventeenth  of  July  at  Aquileia  in  the  eleventh 
consulship  of  Theodosius  the  Augustus  when  the  Caesar 
Valentinian  was  also  consul.2 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  4,  10. 

2  Cf.  C.  S.,  no.  6. 


224  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [482 

B.  APOSTASY 
1.  Christian  apostates  to  lose  the  power  of  testating 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  6.     March  23,  396. 

The  Emperors  Arcadius  and  Honorius  Augusti  to  Cae- 
sarius,  pretorian  prefect. 

Christians  who  have  spotted  themselves  with  the  impious 
superstition  of  idols  are  liable  to  this  penalty :  they  shall 
have  no  right  of  making  a  will  in  favor  of  others  but  cer- 
tain members  of  their  family  shall  inherit,  to  wit:  father 
and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  son  and  daughter,  grandson 
and  granddaughter.  Neither  may  anyone  claim  any  power 
to  arrange  it  differently. 

Given  the  twenty-third  of  March  at  Constantinople  in  the 
fourth  consulship  of  Arcadius  and  in  the  third  of  Honorius, 
the  Augusti. 

2.  Apostates  to  lose  the  right  of  testating 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  7,  7.     April  7,  426. 

The  Emperors  Theodosius  and  Valentinian  Augusti  to 
Bassus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  other  provisions.)  The  voice  of  continual  accu- 
sation shall  pursue  the  sacrilegious  name  of  every  apostate 
and  the  thorough  investigation  of  this  sort  of  crime  shall 
never  cease. 

Although  for  them  former  edicts  should  suffice,  never- 
theless we  reiterate  this :  that  after  they  have  wandered 
from  the  faith  they  shall  not  have  any  right  of  making  a 
will  or  bequeathing  anything.  Neither  shall  they  be  per- 
mitted by  a  semblance  of  sale  to  perpetrate  a  fraud  on  the 
law;  and  all  they  possess  shall  be  given  instead,  without  a 
will,  to  their  relatives  who  are  Christians. 

So  intensely  do  we  desire  that  this  crime  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  perpetual  indictment  that  we  permit  any  appropriate 
claim  to  be  made  without  question  against  the  intestate's 


4g^j  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  22$ 

property  even  after  the  offender's  death.  Neither  shall  we 
suffer  it  to  stand  in  the  way  that  no  testimony  was  brought 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  impious  person. 

In  order  that  there  may  be  no  ignorant  uncertainty  in 
the  interpretation  of  this  crime,  in  these  present  rescripts 
we  censure  those  who  although  they  have  clothed  them- 
selves with  the  name  of  Christianity  have  made  or  caused 
to  have  made,  sacrifices  and  they  are  to  be  punished  in  this 
way  for  their  proven  crime  even  if  it  is  established  only 
after  their  death:  their  gifts  and  wills  shall  be  abrogated 
and  those  to  whom  the  legitimate  succession  gives  the  right, 
may  enter  upon  the  inheritance  of  these  persons. 

Given  the  seventh  of  April  at  Ravenna  in  the  twelfth 
consulship  of  Theodosius  and  the  second  of  Valentinian  the 
Augusti.1 

C.  ANTI-PAGAN 

1.  Pagan  holidays  abolished 

C.  Th.,  ii,  8,  22.    July  3,  395- 

The  Emperors  Arcadius  and  Honorius  to  Heraclianus, 
the  governor  in  Paphagonia. 

We  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  have  already  de- 
clared by  statute  that  the  solemn  days  of  the  pagans'  super- 
stition were  not  to  be  included  in  the  number  of  holidays. 

Given  the  third  of  July  at  Constantinople  while  Olybrius 
and  Probinus  were  consuls. 

2.  Sacrificing  and  Visiting  Temples  or  Shrines  Prohibited 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  io,  13.     Aug.  7,  395. 

The  Emperors  Arcadius  and  Honorius  to  Rufinus,  the 
pretorian  prefect. 

We  decree  that  no  one  shall  have  the  privilege  of  going  to 

1  Cf.  C.  L,  i,  7,  4- 


226  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [484 

a  sanctuary  or  to  any  kind  of  temple  or  of  celebrating 
detestable  sacrifices  at  any  time  or  place.  Wherefore,  let 
all  who  are  trying  to  stray  from  the  dogma  of  the  catholic 
faith  hasten  to  guard  all  that  we  lately  decreed;  and  let 
them  not  presume  to  disregard  what  has  been  ordained 
touching  heretics  or  pagans,  knowing  that  the  punishment 
or  the  fine  determined  for  them  in  the  laws  of  our  divine 
progenitor  shall  be  enforced  with  greater  severity. 

Moreover,  let  the  governors  of  our  provinces  and  the 
households  belonging  to  them,  likewise  the  nobles  of  the 
cities,  the  defensors  and  the  curials,  the  stewards  of  our  es- 
tate among  whom  we  have  discovered  that  illegal  heretical 
assemblies  occur  without  fear  of  the  fine  on  the  ground  that 
they  cannot  be  taxed  (inasmuch  as  they  share  in  the  control 
of  the  fisc)  know  that  if  anyone  attempts  to  break  our  law 
and  is  not  tried  and  immediately  punished,  they  shall  suffer 
all  the  losses  and  penalties  which  are  set  down  in  our 
earlier  laws. 

But  in  particular  we  ordain  and  decree  in  this  law  severer 
action  against  the  governors.  For  if  these  provisions  are 
not  guarded  with  ail  care  and  precaution,  not  only  shall  the 
legal  fine  which  is  appointed  for  them  be  imposed  upon 
them,  but  also  what  is  prescribed  for  the  authors  of  the 
crime.  Nevertheless,  the  penalty  shall  not  be  remitted  to 
these  criminals  on  whom  it  is  rightly  inflicted  on  account  of 
their  obstinate  disobedience.  Furthermore,  we  judge  that 
officials  who  neglect  the  laws  ought  to  suffer  death. 

Given  the  seventh  of  August  at  Constantinople  in  the 
consulship  of  Olybrius  and  Probinus. 

3.  Privileges  of  Pagan  Priests  Abolished 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10.  14.     Dec.  7,  396. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Caesarius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Any  privilege  of  whatsoever  kind  granted  by  ancient  law 


4g5]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  22? 

to  priests,  clergymen,  prefects,  hierophants  of  sacred  rites 
or  by  whatever  other  name  they  may  be  called,  are  hereby 
revoked  and  these  men  are  not  to  fancy  themselves  pro- 
tected by  privilege  insomuch  as  their  profession  is  known 
to  be  forbidden  by  law. 

Given  the  seventh  of  December  at  Constantinople  in  the 
fourth  consulship  of  Arcadius  and  in  the  third  of  Honorius, 
the  two  Augusti. 
4.  Sacrifices  Forbidden  but  Ornaments  of  Public  Buildings  Protected 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  15.     Jan.  29,  399. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Macrobius,  the  vicar  of  Spain  and 
Proclianus,  the  vicar  of  the  five  provinces. 

Just  as  we  forbid  sacrifices,  so  we  desire  that  the  orna- 
ments of  public  buildings  shall  be  protected.  And  those 
who  attempt  to  destroy  these  things  are  not  to  delude  them- 
selves by  any  kind  of  authority  whether  any  rescript  or  any 
law,  perchance,  be  cited.  Documents  of  this  sort  should 
be  taken  from  them  and  should  be  referred  to  our  attention ; 
if  it  can  be  proved  that  they  have  made  out  illegal  permits 
to  travel  by  the  public  post 1  either  in  their  own  or  another's 
name,  we  order  the  permits  to  be  sent  to  us  when  they  are 
presented.  Whoever  furnishes  such  persons  with  means 
of  transportation  is  to  be  fined  two  pounds  of  gold. 

Given  the  twenty-ninth  of  January  at  Ravenna  in  the 
fifth  consulship  of  Theodorus.1 

5.  Rural  Temples  to  be  Destroyed 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  16.     July  10,  399. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Eutychianus,  pretorian  prefect. 

1  Cf.  C.  /.,  i,  11,  3.  Following  Mommsen's  suggestion  "si  inlicitis 
evectiones  aut  suo  aut  alieno  nomine  potuerint  demonstrare"  is  made 
to  read:  "si  qui  fecisse  inlicitas  evectiones  aut  suo  alieno  nomine 
potuerint  demonstrari."  For  the  connotation  of  evectio.  Cf.  C.  Th., 
viii,  5,  57- 


228  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [486 

Temples  standing  in  the  country  shall  be  destroyed  with- 
out disorder  or  riot.  For  when  these  are  torn  down  and 
removed,  the  instrument  itself  for  superstition  will  be 
destroyed. 

Set  forth  at  Damascus  the  tenth  of  July  in  the  fifth  con- 
sulship of  Theodorus. 

6.  Ancient  Shows  Allowed  but  Pagan  Rites  Forbidden 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  17.     Aug.  20,  399. 

The  same  Augusti  to  x\pollodorus,  proconsul  of  Africa. 

Although  we  have  cleared  away  by  a  salutary  law  the 
profane  rites,  yet  we  are  unwilling  that  the  citizens  should 
be  disturbed  in  their  festive  gatherings  and  amusement. 
Wherefore,  we  decree,  that  shows  following  the  old  custom 
shall  be  given  for  the  people,  but  without  the  accompani- 
ment of  any  sacrifice  or  other  forbidden  superstition;  and 
if  the  public  wishes  it,  even  festal  banquets  are  to  be  ar- 
ranged. 

Given  the  twentieth  of  August  at  Patavium  in  the  fifth 
consulship  of  Theodorus.1 

7.  Purified  Temples  to  be  Kept  in  Good  Repair 

C.  Th,,  xvi,  10,  18.    Aug.  20,  399. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Apollodorus,  the  proconsul  of 
Africa. 

Let  no  one  attempt  to  destroy  the  temples  2  cleared  of 
forbidden  things  by  our  decrees. 

Furthermore,  we  decree  that  the  buildings  should  also  be 
kept  in  good  condition.  But  if  anyone  is  caught  making  a 
sacrifice,  he  shall  be  punished  acording  to  the  law  when 
decision  is  rendered,  the  idols  having  been  deposited 
in  the  magistrate's  office ;  for  even  now  it  is  clear  that  vain 
and  superstitions  veneration  is  given  to  them. 

1  Cf.  C.  I.,  i,  11,  4.  tAedes. 


4g7]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  229 

Given  at  Patavium  on  the  twentieth  of  August  in  the 
fifth  consulship  of  Theodorus. 

8.  Temple  Buildings  and  their  Income  to  be  Appropriated  by  the 
Government.     Idols  and  Altars  to  be  Removed 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  19.     Nov.  15,  408  (407). 

The  Emperors  Arcadius,  Honorius,  and  Theodosius  the 
Augusti  to  Curtius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  other  provisions.)  The  yearly  income  of  the 
temples  shall  be  cut  off  and  shall  be  applied  to  help  out  the 
expenses  of  our  most  devoted  soldiery. 

Any  images  wherever  still  standing  in  temples  and  fanes, 
which  have  received  or  are  receiving  religious  rites  of  the 
pagans  shall  be  torn  from  their  temples  since  we  know  this 
has  been  decreed  by  laws  frequently  repeated. 

The  temples  buildings  themselves  whether  situated  in 
cities  or  towns  or  without  the  walls,  shall  be  appropriated 
for  public  purposes.  Altars  shall  be  destroyed  in  every 
place,  and  all  temples  shall  be  given  over  into  our  possession 
to  be  used  for  suitable  purposes;  the  proprietors  shall  be 
forced  to  tear  them  down. 

In  the  more  polluted  places  it  shall  not  be  permitted  to 
hold  a  banquet  or  to  celebrate  any  solemn  sen-ice  in  honor 
of  any  sacrilegious  rite  whatsoever. 

Furthermore,  we  give  the  ecclesiastical  power  to  the 
bishops  of  these  places  to  prevent  these  very  things. 

Moreover,  we  inflict  a  penalty  of  20  pounds  of  gold 
upon  judges  and  a  like  fine  on  their  officials,  if  these  or- 
ders are  neglected  through  their  carelessness. 

Given  at  Rome  the  fifteenth  of  November  in  the  consul- 
ship of  Bassus  and  Philippus.1 

1  Mommsen  believes  this  is  part  of  the  law  given  in  full  in  C.  S.,  12, 
and  that  its  date  is  407.     Vide  infra,  pp.  230  et  seq,  for  C.  S.,  12. 


230  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [488 

9.  Temples  to  be  Appropriated  by  the  Churches 
C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  43-     N°v.  15,  408  (407). 

The  same  Augusti  to  Curtius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

All  that  has  been  decreed  by  us  through  the  authority  of 
general  laws  against  the  Donatists  who  are  also  called  Mon- 
tensians,  the  Manichaeans  or  Priscillianists  or  against  the 
pagans,  we  decree  shall  not  only  endure  but  shall  be  put  into 
thoroughgoing  force  and  effect,  so  that  the  buildings  be- 
longing to  them  or  to  the  Caelicolians  x  who  have  associa- 
tions following  some  new  doctrine,  shall  be  appropriated 
by  the  churches. 

The  penalty  fixed  by  law  must  visit  as  convicted  those 
who  have  confessed  themselves  Donatists  or  who  have  re- 
fused the  communion  of  Catholic  priests  under  the  pretext 
of  a  base  religion  even  though  they  pretend  to  be  Christians. 

Given  the  fifteenth  of  November  at  Rome  during  the  con- 
sulship of  Bassus  and  Philippus." 

10.  Temples  to  be  Appropriated  by  the  Churches.     Temple  Buildings 

and  their  Revenues  to  be  Confiscated  and  Idols  and 

Shrines  to  be  Destroyed 

Constitutiones  Sirmondianae.   Number  12.    Nov.  25,407. 

Cf.  C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  43;  xvi,  10,  19. 

The  Emperors  Honorius  and  Theodosius  Augusti  to 
Curtius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Without  doubt  the  anxiety  and  careful  warning  and  au- 
thoritative instruction  of  religious  men,  God's  priests,  should 
have  been  sufficient  to  improve  the  minds  of  profane  here- 
tics and  the  superstition  of  the  gentiles.  Nevertheless,  we 
have  not  ceased  to  pass  laws  which  have  called  back  the 

1  A  sect  of  the  Jews  who  prayed  to  heaven,  sun  and  moon. 

2  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  9,  12  and  C.  S.,  no.  12.  Mommsen  believes  this  law  was 
given  in  407  and  that  it  is  part  only  of  the  law  given  in  full  in  C.  S., 
no.  12,  q.  v.  infra. 


489]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  23 1 

erring  ones  from  their  evil  intent  through  fear  of  punish- 
ment and  directed  the  ignorant  in  divine  rites. 

But  truly,  the  human  and  the  supernatural  powers  for 
evil  are  so  intermingled  with  each  other  that  they  deceive 
and  impel  many  through  evil  counsel  to  present  and  future 
destruction,  and  ruin  the  lives  of  the  wretches  before  God 
and  before  us,  and  make  them  here  victims  of  the  laws  and 
in  the  world  to  come  force  them  to  undergo  judgment. 

Forced  therefore  by  the  pertinacity  of  the  Donatists  and 
the  madness  of  the  gentiles,  that  have  been  encouraged  by 
the  evil  inactivity  of  judges  and  the  connivance  of  officials 
and  the  careless  contempt  of  city  councils  we  have  thought 
it  needful  to  reiterate  what  we  have  decreed. 

Wherefore,  all  that  we  have  decreed  by  the  authority 
of  general  laws  against  the  Donatists  who  are  also  called 
"  Montensians,"  the  Manichaeans,  the  Priscillianists  or  the 
gentiles,  we  declare  not  only  shall  continue  to  hold  but  shall 
be  put  into  fullest  effect  and  force,  so  that  the  buildings 
belonging  to  them  or  to  the  Caelicolians  who  have  associa- 
tions following  some  new  doctrine,  shall  be  appropriated  to 
the  churches.  The  penalty  fixed  by  law  must  visit  as  con- 
victed those  who  have  confessed  themselves  Donatists  or 
who  have  refused  the  communion  of  Catholic  priests  under 
the  pretext  of  a  base  religion,  even  though  they  pretend  to 
be  Christians. 

The  revenues  of  the  temples  shall  be  cut  off  and  in  future 
shall  be  applied  to  the  revenue  of  the  state  and  be  used  for 
the  expenses  of  our  devoted  soldiery. 

Whatever  images  still  exist  in  temples  or  shrines  to  which 
pagan  rites  have  been  or  are  being  paid,  we  order  torn  town, 
although  we  know  that  this  decree  has  frequently  been 
issued  under  reiterated  penalty.  The  temple  buildings 
themselves  which  are  situated  in  cities,  towns  or  outside  the 
walls  shall  be  given  over  to  public  use.     Altars  are  to  be  de- 


232  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [490 

stroyed  everywhere  and  all  temples  in  our  territories  are  to 
be  converted  to  convenient  uses ;  the  owners  shall  be  forced 
to  destroy  them.  Nor  is  it  at  all  allowable  to  hold  ban- 
quets in  honor  of  sacrilegious  rites  nor  to>  perform  any  re- 
ligious services  in  baneful  places. 

Furthermore,  we  give  to  the  bishops  of  the  districts  the 
ecclesiastical  power  of  prohibiting  these  things.  For  we 
have  granted  the  power  of  execution  to  Maximus,  Julianus 
and  Eutychus,1  in  order  that  the  decrees  contained  in  the 
general  laws  against  the  Donatists,  Manichaeans  and  here- 
tics or  gentiles  of  this  sort  might  be  enforced.  Neverthe- 
less, they  must  remember  that  in  all  ways  the  procedure 
prescribed  by  the  statutes  is  to  be  followed.  So  that  any 
act  which  might  seem  to  have  been  committed  contrary  to 
a  prohibition,  they  might  later  report  to  the  judges  to  be 
approved  according  to  law.  A  fine  fixed  long  ago,  of  20 
pounds  of  gold  and  an  equal  fine  determined  for  their  offi- 
cials and  city  council  will  fall  upon  them,  O  Curtius,  dearest 
and  most  devoted  kinsman,  if  these  decrees  are  neglected 
by  their  dissimulation. 

This  decree  for  improving  the  character  of  mankind  and 
guarding  religion,  your  sublime  magnificence  will  have  sent 
to  the  governors  of  the  provinces  and  will  assist  in  its  en- 
forcement everywhere  by  appropriate  energy. 

Given  the  twenty-fifth  of  November  at  Rome.  Set  forth 
at  Carthage  in  the  forum  in  the  proclamation  of  the  pro- 
consul Porphyrius  the  fifth  of  June  in  the  fifth  consulship 
of  Bassus  and  Filippus. 

11.  Only  Catholics  to  Serve  as  Palace  Guards 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  42.     Nov.  14,  408. 

The   Emperors   Honorius   and   Theodosius   Augusti   to 

1  Agentum  in  rebus  executionem  Mamivi,  etc.,  indulsimus.     Cf.  C.  Th., 
xvi,  10,  19;  xvi,  5,  43,  supra,  p.  229. 


4oj]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  233 

Olympius,  the  chief  of  the  officials  and  Valens,  count  of 
the  household. 

We  prohibit  those  who  are  enemies  to  the  Catholic  faith 
from  serving  as  soldiers  in  the  palace,  for  we  are  unwill- 
ing to  have  near  us  in  any  capacity,  anyone  who  is  out  of 
harmony  with  us  in  faith  and  religion. 

Given  at  Ravenna  the  fourteenth  of  November  in  the 
consulship  of  Bassus  and  Philippus. 

12.  Laws  Against  Pagans  to  be  Enforced 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  46.     Jan.  15,  409- 

The  same  Augusti  to  Theodore,  pretorian  prefect  for  the 
second  time. 

The  Donatists  and  other  vain  heretics  and  those 
others  who  cannot  be  converted  to  the  worship  of  the 
Catholic  communion,  Jews  and  Gentiles  who  are  vulgarly 
known  as  pagans  may  not  think  that  the  provisions  of  the 
laws  previously  passed  against  them  have  grown  lax.  Let 
all  judges  understand  that  they  must  heed  these  articles  with 
faithful  loyalty;  and  especially  among  their  cares  let  them 
not  fail  to  carry  out  all  decrees  against  these  persons. 

If  any  judge  through  the  sin  of  connivance  fail  to  execute 
an  existing  law  let  him  realize  that  he  shall  lose  his  rank 
and  suffer  severer  action  from  our  clemency,  and  his  offi- 
cials who  disregarded  instructions  and  failed  to  provide 
for  their  own  safety  shall  be  fined  20  pounds  of  gold;  the 
three  chief  men  shall  be  punished. 

Furthermore,  if  men  of  rank  keep  silent  over  any  such 
deed  committed  in  their  own  cities  or  districts,  for  favor 
to  wicked  men,  let  them  know  that  they  shall  undergo  the 
penalty  of  deportation  and  lose  their  own  possessions. 

Given  the  fifteenth  of  January  at  Ravenna  in  the  eighth 
consulate  of  Honorius  and  the  third  of  Theodosius,  the 
Augusti.1 

1  Cf.  C.  S.,  no.  14. 


234  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [4g2 

13.   Temples  Appropriated  by  the  Government.     Objects  consecrated 
for  Sacrifices  to  be  Removed  from  Public  Places 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  IO,  20.     Aug.  30,  415. 

The  Emperors  Honorius  and  Theodosius,  the  Augusti. 

By  our  orders,  priests  of  the  pagan  superstition  are  liable 
to  legal  penalty  unless  by  November  first  they  depart  from 
Carthage  and  return  to  their  native  cities,  so  that  the  guilty 
priests  may  be  held  throughout  the  whole  of  Africa  under 
similar  sentence  unless  they  leave  the  metropolitan  cities 
and  go  to  their  own  cities. 

All  the  places  that  the  error  of  our  forefathers  set  apart 
for  sacred  rites,  we,  in  accordance  with  the  decrees  of  the 
divine  Gratian,  order  to  be  appropriated  to  us  so  that  from 
the  time  since  it  was  forbidden  to  spend  the  public  money 
on  this  wretched  superstition,  the  income  shall  be  collected 
from  the  illegal  possessors.  But  that  which  in  accordance 
with  that  law  either  the  liberality  of  former  princes  or  our 
own  majesty  has  bestowed  upon  individuals  anywhere  shall 
be  secure  forever  among  their  private  possessions. 

We  decree  that  this  shall  be  observed,  not  only  in  Africa, 
but  throughout  all  the  regions  of  our  world.  All  that  prop- 
erty which  by  numerous  decrees  we  have  allotted  to  the 
venerable  Church,  the  Christian  religion  will  now  justly  ap- 
propriate to  itself,  SO'  that  all  money  once  expended  on  the 
superstition  of  that  time  which  has  been  rightly  condemned, 
and  all  the  lands  which  the  fredmni,1  which  the  dendro- 
phori,2 which  each  and  every  title  and  profession  of  the 

1  Godefroy  says  there  is  no  reference  elsewhere  to  frediani  in  the 
Code.     They  seem  to  be  mentioned  in  Bacchic  processions. 

2 Dendrophori,  the  "bearers  of  the  tree"  or  the  "corporation  of  the 
cut-down  pine  tree."  The  "  tree "  was  the  pine  beneath  which  Attis 
offered  the  sacrifice  of  his  manhood.  The  Attis-tree,  decorated  with 
violets,  its  trunk  bound  with  woolen  fillets  like  the  winding  sheet 
of  the  dead  was  carried  in  procession  through  the  city  to  the  temple 
of  Magna  Mater  on  the  Palatine.     The  dendrophori  were  also  a  gild 


493]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  235 

pagans  have  held  set  apart  for  banquets  and  sumptuous 
feasts,  now  that  this  error  is  destroyed,  may  increase  the 
revenue  of  our  house. 

Further,  if  objects  formerly  consecrated  for  sacrifices 
contributed  to  the  deceiving  of  mankind,  they  should 
be  removed  from  baths  and  public  sight  lest  they  offer  al- 
lurement to  the  erring.  We  have  decreed,  moreover,  that 
Chiliarchae  x  and  Centonarii  or  any  who  are  said  to  control 
the  distribution  of  the  people  shall  be  removed;  and  that  he 
shall  not  escape  capital  punishment  who  either  voluntarily 
has  accepted  this  title  or  has  suffered  himself  against  his 
will  to  be  associated  with  this  audacity  and  odium. 

Given  at  Ravenna  the  thirtieth  of  August,  in  the  tenth 
consulship  of  Honorius  and  the  sixth  of  Theodosius,  the 
Augusti.2 

14.  Pagans  Barred  from  Military  and  Civil  Offices. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  21.    Dec.  7,  416. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Aurelianus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  other  provisions.)  Those  who  are  defiled  by  the 
unholy  error  of  the  pagan  rite,  that  is  to  say  the  pagans, 
shall  not  be  admitted  to  the  militia,  nor  shall  they  be  hon- 
ored by  administrative  or  judicial  dignity. 

Given  the  seventh  of  December,  in  the  seventh  consulship 
of  our  lord  Theodosius  the  Augustus,  when  Palladius  was 
also  consul. 

15.  Existing  Laws  against  Pagans  to  be  Enforced. 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  22.     April  9,  423. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Asclepiodotus,  pretorian  prefect. 

of  timber  merchants  who,  together  with  the  members  of  the  building 
trades  formed  the  fire-brigade  in  the  municipalities  of  the  West.     Cf. 
G.  F.  Moore,  History  of  Religions,  vol.  i,  pp.  581   et  seq.  and  H.  S. 
Jones,  Companion   to  Roman  History,  pp.  295-6. 
1  Commanders  of  1,000.  2  Cf.  C.  /.,  i,  11,  5. 


236  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [494 

(After  other  provisions.)  If  there  still  be  any  pagans, 
although  we  do  not  believe  there  are  any  such,  the  precepts 
of  the  old  laws  shall  hold  them  in  check,  etc. 

Given  the  ninth  of  April  at  Constantinople  when  Ascle- 
piodotus  and  Marinianus  were  consuls. 

16.  Laws  against  the  Pagans  are  well  known 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  8,  26.    April  9,  423. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Asclepiodotus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

Our  own  decrees  and  those  of  our  ancestors  are  known 

and  published  among  the  people,  in  which  we  have  checked 

the  arrogance  and  audacity  of  the  abominable  pagans,  Jews 

and  even  heretics.1 

17.  Pagans  Who  Sacrifice  Shall  Lose  their  Property  and  be  Exiled 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  23.    June  8,  423. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Asclepiodotus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  other  clauses.)  If  the  pagans  who  remain  are  at 
any  time  caught  making  abominable  sacrifices  to  demons, 
they  shall  be  punished  by  proscription  of  goods  and  exile, 
although  they  ought  to  suffer  capital  punishment. 

Given  the  eighth  of  June  at  Constantinople  in  the  con- 
sulship of  Asclepiodotus  and  Marinianus. 

18.  Pagan  Superstition  to  be  Rooted  out 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  5,  63.    July  6  or  Aug.  4,  425. 

The  same  Augusti  and  the  same  Caesar  to  Georgius,  the 
proconsul  of  Africa. 

We  are  extirpating  all  heresies  and  all  falsehoods,  all 
schisms  and  all  superstitions  of  the  pagans  and  all  errors 
that  are  inimicable  to  the  catholic  religion. 

But  if  these  .  .  .  penalty  shall  be  attached  to  these  sta- 
tutes of  our  clemency  and  the  authors  of  the  sacrilegious 
superstition  shall  learn  that  their  accomplices  will  be  pun- 
ished by  proscription;  so  that  if  they  refuse  to  be  brought 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  9,  16. 


495]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  237 

back  from  their  perfidious  error  by  reason,  at  least  they 
will  be  restored  by  fear.  And  since  all  attempt  at  supplica- 
tion is  denied  forever,  they  will  be  punished  with  the  sever- 
ity befitting  crimes,  .  .  .  etc. 

Given  at  Aquileia  on  the  fourth  of  August  in  the  eleventh 
consulship  of  our  lord  Theodosius  the  Augustus  and  in  the 
first  of  the  Caesar  Valentinian. 

19.  Astrologers  to  be  Exiled.      Pagans  Barred  from  Pleading  a  Case 
or  Serving  as  Soldiers 

Constitutioucs  Sirmoudianac.     No.  6.     July  9  (Aug.  6), 

425- 

Emperors  Theodosius  Augustus  and  Valentinian  Caesar 

to  Amatius  V.  I.,  pretorian  prefect  of  the  Gauls, 
(the  end  of  the  decree.) 

Since  it  is  seemly  that  devout  persons  should  not  be  per- 
verted by  superstitions,  we  give  orders  that  Manichaeans 
and  all  heretics  or  schismatics  or  astrologers  and  every 
sect  unfriendly  with  the  catholics  should  be  driven  out  of 
all  cities  in  order  that  they  may  not  be  sullied  by  the  con- 
tagious presence  of  criminals. 

We  deny  to  Jews  or  pagans  the  right  of  pleading  a  case 
in  court  or  of  serving  as  soldiers.  We  are  unwilling  that 
followers  of  the  Christian  law  should  be  subject  to  them, 
lest  they  take  advantage  of  their  authority,  and  change  the 
faith  that  should  be  venerated.  Wherefore  we  order  that 
all  persons  touched  with  this  unfortunate  error  be  excluded 
unless  a  timely  amendment  cure  them. 

Given  the  ninth  of  July  at  Aquileia  in  the  eleventh  con- 
sulship of  our  lord  Theodosius  Augustus  when  Valentinian 
also  was  consul. 

20.  Sacrifices  Prohibited.    Temples  and  Shrines  to  be  Destroyed 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  25.     Nov.  14,  435. 

The  Emperors  Theodosius  and  Valentinian,  the  Augusti 
to  Isidorus,  the  pretorian  prefect. 


238  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [496 

We  forbid  all  abominable  and  censurable  offering  of  vic- 
tims for  polluted  pagan  purposes  and  other  sacrifices  pro- 
hibited at  the  command  of  ancient  ordinances.  And  all 
pagan  shrines,  temples  and  sanctuaries  which  still  exist,  we 
order  to  be  destroyed  at  the  command  of  the  magistrates 
and  to  be  atoned  for  by  the  erection  of  the  sign  of  the  ador- 
able Christian  religion.  Be  it  known  to  all,  if  it  happen 
that  any  is  declared  by  a  competent  judge  after  proper  trial, 
to  have  violated  this  law  he  shall  be  punished  with  death. 

Given  at  Constantinople  the  fourteenth  of  November  in 
the  fifteenth  consulship  of  Theodosius  and  in  the  fourth  of 
Valentinian,  the  Augusti. 

21.  The  Festival  of  the  Majuma  '  Abolished. 

C.  Th.,  xv,  6,  2.     399  Oct.  2. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Aurelianus,  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  other  provisions.)  We  allow  the  public  games  to 
be  celebrated  lest  a  spirit  of  gloom  be  engendered  by  ex- 
cessive restriction  upon  such  things.  But  we  refuse  to  allow 
that  detestable  and  unseemly  spectacle,  the  majuma,2  be- 
cause shameless  license  is  covered  by  that  name. 

Given  the  second  of  October  at  Constantinople  when 
Theodorus  was  consul.2 

22.  Paganism  Condemned  and  Sacrifice  Forbidden 

Corpus  Legum  N ovellarum  Theodosii  II,  iii,  438,  Jan. 
31- 

The  Emperors  Theodosius  and  Valentinian,  Augusti  to 
Florentius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

(After  a  long  disquisition  on  the  need  of  maintaining  the 

1  This  popular  festival  which  took  the  form  of  a  mock  sea  fight  at 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber  occurred  in  May. 

2  An  Eng.  translation  of  this  law  is   found  in   Humphrey,  Politics 
and  Religion  in  the  Days  of  Augustus,  p.  73. 


497]  HONORIUS  AND  ARCADIUS  239 

true  religion)  :  Hence  our  clemency  perceives  the  need  of 
keeping  watch  over  the  pagans  and  inhuman  gentiles  who, 
by  natural  depravity  and  stubborn  lawlessness,  forsake  the 
path  of  true  religion  and  perform  the  nefarious  rites  of  sac- 
rifices and  the  errors  of  baleful  superstition  by  some  means 
or  other  in  the  hidden  solitudes  when  they  do  not  make  a 
sort  of  public  profession  of  their  crimes  to  insult  divine 
majesty  and  to  show  scorn  of  our  age.  Not  the  thousand 
terrors  of  laws  already  promulgated  nor  the  penalty  of 
exile  pronounced  upon  them  deter  these  men,  nor  though 
they  cannot  reform  can  they  learn  restraint  at  least  from 
the  weight  of  their  crimes  and  the  multitude  of  their  vic- 
tims. But  that  insane  audacity  transgresses  continually; 
our  patience  is  exhausted  by  their  wicked  behavior  so  that 
if  we  desired  to  forget  we  could  not  disregard  it.  There- 
fore although  the  love  of  religion  can  never  be  tranquil,  al- 
though the  pagan  madness  demands  the  severity  of  every 
punishment,  nevertheless  mindful  of  our  innate  clemency, 
we  decree  by  unswerving  command  that  whoever  shall  be 
found  in  any  spot  with  polluted  and  contaminated  mind  of- 
fering sacrifices  shall  suffer  our  wrath  against  his  life  and 
property.  For  we  ought  to  offer  this  better  victim,  preserv- 
ing unsullied  the  altar  of  Christianity.  Or  shall  we  endure 
longer  the  changing  of  the  seasons  under  the  angry  mood  of 
heaven,  which  exasperated  by  pagan  perfidy  preserves  no 
longer  the  equanimity  of  nature?  For  why  has  Spring  lost 
its  wonted  graciousness  ?  Why  has  Summer  with  scanty 
crops  robbed  the  industrious  husbandman  of  his  hope  of 
harvest?  Why  has  the  fierce  inclement  Winter  blasted  the 
fruitful  earth  with  piercing  cold  and  the  bane  of  sterility, 
unless  nature  has  passed  a  decree  of  its  own  to  avenge  im- 
piety? In  order  that  we  may  not  be  compelled  to  endure 
these  conditions  longer  the  holy  majesty  of  heavenly  power 
must  be  propitiated  as  we  have  said  by  pacificatory  ven- 
geance. 


24o  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [498 

In  addition  the  laws  which  were  passed  with  innumerable 
provisions  against  the  Manichaeans,  etc.  .  .  . 

(Then  follows  a  list  of  heretic  sects  that  are  put  under 
condemnation. ) 

Given  the  thirty-first  of  January  at  Constantinople  when 
our  lord  Theodosius  the  Augustus  was  Consul  for  the  six- 
teenth time  with  him  who  was  afterwards  proclaimed. 

23.  Temples  to  Remain  Closed.  Sacrifice  and  all  Pagans  Rites  Forbiden 

C.  /.,  i,  11,  7,  Nov.  12,  451. 

The  Emperors  Valentinian  and  Marcian,  Augusti,  to  Pal- 
ladius,  the  pretorian  prefect. 

No  one  shall  again  open  for  purposes  of  veneration  and 
worship,  the  temples  which  were  closed  some  time  since. 
Far  be  it  from  our  age  to  render  the  ancient  honors  to 
shameful  and  abominable  idols ;  to  deck  the  unholy  temple 
doors  with  wreaths;  to  kindle  fires  on  the  impious  altars; 
to  burn  incense  on  them ;  to  slay  sacrificial  animals ;  to  pour 
wine  from  sacrificial  bowls  and  to  consider  as  God's  service 
what  is  only  blasphemy. 

Whoever,  contrary  to  this  order  of  our  serenity  and  the 
commands  of  the  most  hallowed  ancient  decrees,  seeks  to 
make  such  sacrifices,  shall  be  charged  by  due  course  of  law 
with  his  shameful  crime  in  open  court,  and  upon  conviction 
shall  undergo  the  confiscation  of  all  his  property  and  the 
penalty  of  death. 

Likewise  his  accomplices  and  those  who  assisted  in  the 
sacrifice  shall  suffer  the  same  penalty  that  threatens  himself ; 
so  that  every  man  in  dread  of  the  severity  of  our  law  and  in 
fear  of  the  penalty  may  forbear  to  celebrate  the  forbidden 
sacrificial  rites. 

However,  if  after  a  regular  complaint  and  examination 
into  the  case  followed  by  the  conviction  of  the  offender,  the 


49oJ  HONOR  I  US  AND  ARCAD1US  24 1 

honorable  governor  of  the  province  neglects  to  punish  so 
serious  a  crime,  then  the  judge  himself  must  pay  to  our 
fisc,  50  pounds  of  gold,  likewise  the  officials  under  him  must 
pay  50  pounds. 

Given  the  twelfth  of  November  in  the  consulship  of  Mar- 
tian, the  Augustus. 

D.    PRO-PAGAN 
1.  The  Festival  of  the  Majuma  Reestablished  x 

C.  Th.,  xv,  6,  1.    396  Apr.  25. 

The  Emperors  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  Augusti  to  Cae- 
sarius,  pretorian  prefect. 

It  has  pleased  our  clemency  that  the  festivity  of  the  ma- 
juma should  be  re-established  in  the  provinces.  Never- 
theless in  such  a  way  that  virtue  may  be  preserved  and  mod- 
esty be  maintained  by  chaste  manners. 

Given  the  twenty-fifth  of  April  at  Constantinople  in  the 
fourth  consulship  of  Arcadius  the  Augustus,  when  Hon- 
orius the  Augustus  was  consul  for  the  third  time. 

2.  Law-abiding  Pagans  not  to  be  Disturbed 

C.  Th.,  xvi,  10,  24.    June  8,  423. 

The  same  Augusti  to  Asclepiodotus,  pretorian  prefect. 

(Following  other  enactments.)  Manichaeans  and  those 
they  call  Pepuzitae  2  and  also  those  who  are  worse  than  all 
other  heretics  in  this  one  opinion,  because  they  are  out  of 
harmony  with  all  on  the  holy  day  of  Easter,  if  they  per- 
sist in  their  madness,  we  punish  with  the  same  penalty,  pro- 
scription of  goods  and  exile. 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  xi,  46,  1.  For  the  prohibition  of  this  festival  three  years 
later  vide  supra,  p.  238. 

sThe  Pepuzitae,  also  called  Montanists,  took  their  name  from  the 
Phrygian  town  of  Pepuza. 


242  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [500 

But  we  particularly  demand  of  Christians,  whether  they 
are  really  such  or  are  called  so,  that  they  shall  not  dare, 
abusing  the  authority  of  religion,  to  lay  hands  on  the  Jews 
and  pagans  who  live  peaceably  and  attempt  nothing  turbu- 
lent or  contrary  to  the  law.  For  if  they  have  been  violent 
against  the  quiet  or  have  disturbed  or  plundered  their  prop- 
erty, summoned  before  a  tribunal  they  shall  be  compelled 
to  restore,  not  alone  those  things  which  they  carried  off, 
but  three  and  four  fold. 

Furthermore,  let  the  rector  of  the  provinces,  the  officials, 
also  the  provincials  know  that  if  they  have  permitted  this  to 
be  done,  they  shall  be  punished  as  well  as  those  who  did  it. 

Given  at  Constantinople  the  eighth  of  June  in  the  consul- 
ships of  Asclepiodotus  and  Marinianus. 1 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  ii,  6. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Laws  after  Theodosius  II  and  Valentinian  III 

The  following  group  of  4  laws  constitute  the  legisla- 
tion affecting  paganism  given   from  472   to   527.      They 
are   all    found   in   the   Codex  Justiniani.      Every   one   of 
these  laws  is  directed  against  the  pagans.      One  of   the 
most  interesting,  C.  J.,  i,  11,  10,  unfortunately  bears  no  date 
but  was  presumably  drawn  up  after  472,  since  C.  /.,  i,  n, 
8  bears  that  date.     Towards  apostasy  it  displays  the  spirit 
we  have  already  encountered  but  the  penalty  for  the  offense 
has  increased  in  harshness.     We  are  reminded  of  Julian's 
action   towards    Christian   teachers    and    students    of    the 
classics,  when  we  read  here  that  no  pagan  is  to  be  per- 
mitted to  teach.     Perhaps  the  most  striking  feature  of  the 
law  is  the  evidence  of  the  abandonment  of  the  old  laissez- 
faire  attitude  in  regard  to  pagans  themselves  and  the  adop- 
tion of  a  policy  of  coercive  conversion  of  pagans.     It  had 
long  been  illegal  to  practise  pagan  rites  but  no  attempt 
hitherto  seems  to  have  been  made  by  the  government  to 
force  pagans  to  adopt  Christianity.     By  this  law,  however, 
it  becomes  a  penal  offense  to  be  a.  pagan  as  well  as  to  ob- 
serve the  forms  of  any  pagan  cult.     A  scheme  for  trans- 
forming pagans  into  Christians  is  set  forth  in  this  decree, 
and  care  is  taken  to  insist  upon  the  early  baptism  of  chil- 
dren. 

The  last  law  of  this  section  is  one  of  Justinian's  given  in 
527  and  shows  how  persistent  was  paganism  even  at  this 
date.     Naturally  from  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury on  the  inroads  of  Germanic  tribes  contributed  to  swell 
501]  243 


244  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [502 

the  declining  numbers  of  the  pagans  still  within  the  Roman 
State. 

Our  sources  for  secular  laws  against  the  pagans  end 
with  Justinian's  reign  and  with  them  the  limit  of  our  field 
of  investigation  is  reached.  Had  we  time  we  might  ex- 
amine how  the  Church,  aided  by  the  secular  arm,  continued 
to  wage  the  war  begun  by  the  government,  and  to  read  in 
the  canons  of  Church  councils  and  in  the  prohibition  of 
penitentials  1  how  long  drawn  out  was  the  conflict. 

But  here  we  must  leave  the  pagans.  We  have  followed 
for  two  centuries  the  legislation  affecting  them.  We  have 
witnessed  the  inroads  of  Christianity  upon  pagan  cults  and 
have  seen  how,  becoming  in  311  one  of  the  many  legalized 
religions  in  the  Roman  State,  Christianity,  supplanted  the 
old  state  religion  and  finally  became  the  only  legal  religion 
within  the  empire.  We  have  observed  the  growth  of  legis- 
lation proscribing  public  and  private  observance  of  heathen 
cults.  Finally  we  have  seen  how  the  pagans  lost  the  tacit 
right  to  remain  outside  Christianity  and  were  ordered  to 
adopt  the  faith  of  the  triumphant  Church. 

ANTI-PAGAN 
1.  Pagan  Practices  Prohibited 

C.  /.,  i,  11,  8.    a.  472(?)- 

The  Emperors  Leo  and  Anthemius,  Augusti  to  Dioscorus, 
the  pretorian  prefect. 

Let  no  one  dare  attempt  what  has  frequently  been  for- 
bidden the  followers  of  pagan  superstition,  knowing  that  he 
commits  a  public  crime  who  ventures  to  perpetrate  such  an 
offense. 

And  we  so  desire  to  check  such  crimes  that  when  any- 
thing of  the  sort  is  done  even  upon  the  estate  or  under  the 

1  See  H.  J.  Schmitz,  Die  Bussbiicher  und  die  Bussdisciplin  der  Kirche, 
Mainz,  1883,  passim;  also  Wasserschleben. 


c0<* ]     AFTER  THEODOSIUS  II  AND  VALENTINIAN  III      245 

roof  of  another  man,  if  it  be  with  his  consent,  that  estate  or 
building  shall  be  confiscated  to  the  might  of  the  most  sacred 
treasury.  Moreover,  the  owners,  for  this  cause  alone,  that 
they  wittingly  consented  to  the  contamination  of  their  prop- 
erty by  such  abominations,  shall,  if  they  are  distinguished 
by  position  or  any  office,  lose  that  position  or  office  and  suf- 
fer the  confiscation  of  their  goods.  If  they  are  private  citi- 
zens or  of  humble  rank,  they  shall  receive  corporal  punish- 
ment and  then  be  sent  to  the  mines  into  perpetual  banish- 
ment. 
2.  Pagan  Rites  Forbidden  and  Bequests  for  Pagan  Cults  Prohibited 

C.  J.,  i,  11,  9.1  No  date  is  given  but  it  follows  a  law  pre- 
sumably of  472. 

We  order  that  our  magistrates  both  in  this 

royal  city  and  in  the  provinces  shall  take  the  greatest  care 
to  become  informed  of  the  case  both  by  themselves  and  by 
the  most  religious  bishops  and  to  institute  legal  inquiry  into 
all  the  impieties  of  pagan  superstition,  that  these  offenses 
may  not  be  committed,  and  if  committed,  may  be  punished. 
But  if  the  right  of  punishing  (coercitio)  these  offenses  ex- 
ceeds the  provincial  power,  they  shall  be  referred  to  us,  lest 
responsibility  for,  and  incentive  to,  the  crimes  fall  upon  the 
judges  themselves. 

But  no  one  is  permitted  either  by  will  or  by  gift  to  leave 
anything  to  a  community  or  to  individuals  for  the  purpose 
of  maintaining  the  impiety  of  the  pagans.  Although  this 
will  or  testament  or  gift  may  not  be  specifically  set  forth  in 
words,  but  in  another  fashion,  its  author  may  assuredly  be 
brought  before  the  judges. 

But  that  property  which  is  so  bequeathed  or  bestowed, 
whether  granted  or  bequeathed  to  those  individuals  or  those 
communities  shall  be  taken  away  and  shall  be  appropriate 

1  This  law  is  given  in  Greek. 


246  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [504 

for  the  cities  in  which  those  persons  lived  or  in  which  such 
communities  are  situated  that  it  may  be  expended  like  public 
revenues. 

All  the  penalties  which  were  instituted  by  preceding  em- 
perors against  the  error  of  the  pagans  or  in  favor  of  the 
orthodox  faith  shall  be  valid  and  unchanged  in  perpetuity 
and  maintained  by  this  present  pious  legislation.1 

3.  Baptized  Persons  who  follow  Pagan  Practices  to  Suffer  Death.  Pro- 
visions for  the  conversion  of  the  unbaptized.     Pagans 
Forbidden  to  give  Instruction 

C.  /.,  i,  11,  io.2     No  date  given. 

Since  some  persons  have  been  discovered,  who, 

imbued  with  the  error  of  the  impious  and  criminal  pagans, 
do  those  things  which  move  a  clement  God  to  just  wrath, 
we  do  not  suffer  those  matters  relating  to  them  which  have 
not  been  hitherto  regulated  to  go  longer  unnoticed,  but 
knowing  that  after  abandoning  the  worship  of  the  true  and 
only  God,  in  insane  error  they  have  made  sacrifices  to  idols 
and  have  celebrated  the  rites  that  are  replete  with  every  im- 
piety. Those  in  particular  who  have  committed  these 
crimes  after  they  have  been  considered  worthy  of  holy  bap- 
tism, we  subject  to  punishment  worthy  of  the  offense  of 
which  they  are  convicted  and  this  we  do  in  all  mercy;  and 
in  future  through  this  present  law  we  decree  for  all,  that 
they  who  have  been  made  Christians  and  who  have  been 
deemed  worthy  of  holy  and  saving  baptism  at  whatever 
time  soever,  if  thereafter  it  appears  they  have  lingered  in 
the  error  of  the  pagans,  they  shall  suffer  death.  But  those 
who  were  not  considered  worthy  of  holy  baptism  ought  to 
show  themselves  whether  they  are  staying  in  this  royal  city 
or  in  the  provinces  and  go  to  the  blessed  churches  with  their 

1  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  5,  15,  a  decree  of  the  same  year  in  which  it  is  forbidden 
that  any  but  Catholic  Christians  be  appointed  as  judges. 

2  This  law  is  found  in  Greek. 


q0r]     AFTER  THEODOSIUS  II  AND  VALENTIN  IAN  III      247 

wives  and  children  and  all  the  household  dependent  upon 
them  to  be  taught  the  true  faith  of  the  Christians,  and  being 
taught  they  should  abjure  their  former  error  and  receive 
saving  baptism  or  else  understand  if  they  despise  it,  that 
they  shall  have  no  part  in  our  State  and  shall  be  forbidden 
to  own  real  or  personal  property  but  shall  be  deprived  of 
every  thing  and  left  in  poverty  in  addition  to  the  legal  pen- 
alties to  which  they  shall  be  liable. 

Furthermore,  we  forbid  any  teaching  on  the  part  of 
those  who  labor  under  the  delusion  of  the  pagans  lest  with 
their  reasonings  they  pretend  to  instruct  those  who  unfor- 
tunately listen  to  them  while  in  fact  they  corrupt  the  souls 
of  their  pupils.  Nor  shall  they  receive  any  income  from  the 
fisc  since  they  may  not  derive  such  income  even  from  the 
preparation  of  sacred  letters  or  of  pragmatic  rescripts. 

And  if  any  man  either  here  or  in  the  provinces  is  proved 
to  offend  in  these  ways  and  does  not  speedily  visit  our  holy 
churches  with  his  wife  and  children  as  we  have  ordered  he 
shall  be  subjected  to  the  above-mentioned  punishments  and 
his  goods  shall  be  confiscated  to  the  fisc  and  he  himself 
shall  be  sent  into  exile.  Moreover,  if  anyone  in  our  State 
is  found  secretly  offering  sacrifices  and  worship  to  images 
he  shall  suffer  the  destruction  which  Manichaeans  and  Bor- 
boritae,  who  are  the  same,  justly  undergo :  for  we  deem  the 
one  class  to  be  the  same  as  the  other.  This  also  we  decree, 
that  their  children  of  tender  age  at  once  and  without  delay 
shall  receive  saving  baptism,  and  those  who  have  passed  the 
age  of  childhood  shall  attend  the  blessed  churches  and  be 
instructed  in  the  holy  scriptures  and  so  yield  themselves  to 
sincere  penitence  and  reject  their  former  error  to  receive 
holy  baptism ;  for  by  this  means  they  will  attain  surely  the 
true  and  orthodox  faith  and  will  not  again  lapse  into  their 
former  error.  But  those  who  have  themselves  insincerely 
received  or  shall  receive  saving  baptism  for  the  sake  of  re- 


24g  LAWS  AGAINST  PAGANISM  [506 

taining  military  rank  or  their  own  possessions  and  who 
leave  their  wives  and  children  or  other  members  of  their 
households  in  pagan  error  shall  be  deprived  of  their  goods 
and  of  any  share  in  our  state  and  shall  be  subject  to  the 
penalties  which  they  deserve  when  it  is  proved  that  they 
received  holy  baptism  in  bad  faith.  These  provisions  we 
put  in  effect  against  the  wicked  pagans  and  the  Manichaeans 
and  the  Barboritae  who  are  evidently  a  party  of  the  Mani- 
chaeans. 

4.  Pagans  Barred  from  Office  and  their  Real  Property  to  be  Confiscated 

C.  J.,  i,  5,  12.    a.  527.1 

The  Emperors  Justin  and  Justinian,  the  Augusti.  (After 
various  provisions  touching  the  heretics,  particularly  the 
Manichaeans).  It  is  our  intention  to  restore  the  existing  laws 
which  affect  the  rest  of  the  heretics  of  whatever  errors  or 
name  they  are,  (and  we  label  as  heretic  whoever  is  not  a 
member  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  of  our  orthodox  and 
holy  faith),  likewise  the  pagans  who  attempt  to  introduce 
the  worship  of  many  gods,  and  the  Jews  and  the  Samari- 
tans, and  to  render  them  more  effective  by  this  enactment 
and,  in  addition,  to  issue  more  provisions  by  which  there  may 
be  greater  security,  honor  and  esteem  to  the  participators  of 
our  holy  religion.  All  are  able  to  perceive,  as  we  have  de- 
creed, that  those  who  do  not  rightly  venerate  God  shall  lose 
their  real  property.  We  forbid  any  of  the  above-mentioned 
persons  to  aspire  to  any  dignity  or  to  acquire  civil  or  mili- 
tary office  or  to  attain  any  rank,  with  the  exception  of  the 
men  who  are  called  the  imperial  body  guard  (cohortalis). 

For  we  wish  them  to  be  held  subject  to  this  restriction 
from  the  beginning  and  not  to  have  the  excuse  of  their  false 
religion,  so  that  while  they  remain  in  that  state,  they  shall 
fulfil  all  duties,  shall  perform  every  military  burden,  and  be 

1  This  law  is  found  in  Greek. 


507]     AFTER  THEODOSIUS  II  AND  VALENTINIAN  III      249 

prohibited  both  from  promotion  and  from  indicting  ortho- 
dox Christians  for  private  or  public  debts;  the  children  of 
these  persons  shall  suffer  the  same  lot  and  if  they  succeed 
in  escaping  it  for  a  while,  they  shall  be  brought  back  to  it. 
.  .  .  But  if  any  heretics,  or  more  especially  any  pagans  or 
Jews  or  Samaritans  and  those  who  are  like  them  hold  any 
of  those  positions  which  we  have  mentioned  and  have  been 
able  to  acquire  any  dignity  or  have  been  registered  as  advo- 
cates or  have  been  endowed  with  military  or  other  office,  we 
order  that  they  shall  forthwith  be  deprived  of  them.  For 
we  desire  to  purify  the  above-mentioned  positions  from  con- 
tact with  such  persons,  now  and  forever,  not  only  in  this 
glorious  city  but  in  ail  the  provinces  and  in  all  the  earth. 

There  is  nothing  new  in  this,  for  in  the  sacred  rules  which 
govern  the  military  offices,  it  is  stated  that  whoever  holds 
these  positions  ought  to  be  orthodox.  Nevertheless  this  law 
seems  to  be  particularly  ours  because  it  is  confirmed  by  us 
and  it  is  not  to  be  disregarded  as  hitherto  when  it  was  ne- 
glected by  some  and  preserved  only  in  documents.  For  a 
thing  does  not  belong  so  much  to  them  who  first  discover  it 
as  to  those  who  employ  it  best  after  discovery.  If  there  is 
any  infringement  of  this  our  statute,  we  declare  not  only 
that  the  election  of  a  man  to  a  forbidden  office  was  invalid 
and  forbid  it  to  be  longer  held,  but  we  fine  him  30  pounds 
of  gold.  We  impose  a  fine  of  8  pounds  of  gold  on  those 
whose  duty  it  will  be  to  keep  public  registers  of  such  men, 
if  cognizant  of  the  fact  of  his  perverted  religion,  they 
nevertheless  admit  him  and  do  not  oppose  nor  reject  him. 
Not  even  do  we  regard  the  magistrates  as  guiltless  if  they 
have  admitted  to  their  offices  those  whom  they  know  to  be 
debarred  by  us  (the  soldiery  1  of  the  imperial  clearly  being 
excepted),  but  from  these  also  we  exact  a  fine  of  50  pounds 
of  gold.2 

1  Militia  cohortaliitm.  a  Cf.  C.  J.,  i,  5,  21,  anno  531. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  Sources 

a.  General  Collections 

Ante-Nicene  Fathers   [A.N.F.],  ed.  by  Roberts  and  Donaldson,   New 

York,  1890-1897. 
Bibliotheque  Latine-Frangaise   [B.L.F.],  ed.  by  C.  L.  F.  Panckoucke, 

Paris,  1825-49. 
Conciliengeschichte,  C.  J.  Hefele,  9  vols.,  Freiburg-im-Breisgau,  1873- 

1890;   an  Eng.  trans.,  vols.   1-5,   London,    1871-85.     Fr.  trans.   H. 

Leclercq,  Paris,  1907-14,  in  progress. 
Corpus  Bysantinae  Historiae  [C.B.H.],  ed.  by  Cramoisy  et  ah,  Paris 

and  elsewhere,  1647-1819. 
Corpus  Inscriptionum   Latinarum    [C.I.L.],   ed.   by   Mommsen   et  a!., 

Berlin,  1862,  in  progress.    New  ed.  1893,  in  progress. 
Corpus  Legum  ab  Imperatoribus  Romanis  ante  Justinianum  Latinarum, 

ed.  by  Haenel,  Leipsig,  1858. 
Corpus   Scriptorum   Ecclesiasticorum   Latinorum    [C.S.E.L.],   Vienna, 

1806,  in  progress. 
Corpus  Scriptorum  Historiae  Byzantinae  [C.S.H.B.],  Bonn,  1828-1897. 
Inscriptionum  Latinarum  Selectarum  Amplissima  Collectio,  3  vols.,  ed. 

by  Hagenbuch,  Orelli,  and  Henzen,  1826- 1856. 
Monumenta  Germania  Historica   [M.G.H.],  ed.   by   Pertz,   Mommsen 

et  ah,  Berlin,  1826,  in  progress. 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers  [N.P.N.F.],  ed.  P.  Schaff,  New  York, 

1 890- 1907. 
Panegyrici  Veteres,  ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828. 
Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus,  ed.  Migne,  J.  P. 

Ser.  Graeca  [M.P.G.],  166  vols.,  Paris,  1857-1866. 

Ser.  Latina  [M.P.L.],  225  vols.,  Paris,  1844-1855. 

Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Collectio,  ed.  J.  D.  Mansi,  Florence  and  Venice, 
I759-I798.    Reprint,  Paris,  1901,  in  progress. 

b.  Individual  Works 

Ambrose,  Opera  [C.S.E.L.],  vol.  xxxii,  also  in  [M.P.L.],  vols,  xiv-xvii; 
Eng.  trans,  by  Romstin   [N.P.N.F.],  series  2,  vol.  x,  New  York, 

1896. 
250  [5o8 


509]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  25 1 

Ammianus  Marcellinus,  Rerum  Gesiarum  Libri,  ed.  in  Teubner  Texts, 
by  V.  Gardthausen,  2  vols.,  Leipsig,  1874-1875;  Eng.  trans,  by  C.  D. 
Yonge,  in  Bohn  Classical  Library,  London,  1902;  also  by  N.  H. 
Baynes,  London,  1912. 

Anonymous  Valesii,  sive  Anonymi  Valesiani,  Origo  Constantini  im- 
peratoris  in  vol.  ix  of  [M.G.H.]   Chronica  Minora,  Berlin,  1892. 

Augustine,  Opera  [C.S.E.L.],  15  vols.,  1887-1911;  also  in  [M.P.L.], 
xxxii-xlvii;  English  trans.  [N.P.N. F.],  ser.  1,  vols.  1-8,  New  York, 
1903- 1907. 

Aurelius  Victor,  sive  Sextus  Aurelius  Victor,  De  Caesaribus  Liber,  ed. 
by  F.  Pichlmayr,  Munich,  1892;  De  Viris  Illustribus,  De  Caesari- 
bus, Epitome,  with  parallel  Fr.  trans,  by  M.  U.  A.  Dubois  in 
[B.L.F.],  Paris,  1846. 

Banduri  Anselmus,  Imperium  Orientale  sive  Antiquitates  Constanti- 
nopolitanae,  ed.  by  Coignard,  Paris,  191 1. 

Carmen  Codicis  Parisini,  in  Hermes,  Zeitschrift  fur  Classische  Philo- 
logie,  1869. 

Cedrenus,  Georgius,  Chronographia,  vol.  ix  in  [C.H.B.],  1647;  also 
vols,  xxxiv,  xxxv  in  [C.S.H.B.],  Bonn,  1838-1839. 

Chronicon  Paschale,  ed.  by  Du  Fresne  and  Du  Cange,  vol.  iv  of 
[C.H.B.],  Paris,  1688;  also  in  [C.S.H.B.],  Bonn,  1832. 

Codex  Justinianus,  Corpus  Juris  Civilis,  ed.  by  Kruger-Mommsen- 
Scholl-Kroll,  4  vols.,  Berlin,  1904-1906:  Ger.  trans,  (text  con- 
densed in  places),  Otto-Schilling-Sintensis,  7  vols.,  Leipsig,  1831- 
1839. 

Codex  Theodosianus,  ed.  by  Godefroy  (invaluable  for  the  commen- 
taries), Lyons,  1665,  also  6  vols.  Leipsig,  1736-1745;  found  in 
Haenel's  Corpus  juris  romani  anti-justiniani,  Bonn,  1837.  Best 
edition  by  Mommsen  and  Meyer,  2  vols,  in  3,  Berlin,  1905. 

Codinus,  Georgius,  De  Originibus  Constantinopolitanis,  vol.  x2  in 
[C.B.H.],  Paris,  1665;  also  vol.  xxxvii,  in  [C.S.B.H.],  Bonn,  1839. 
Excellent  critical  text  by  T.  Preger  in  vol.  ii  of  Scriptores  Ori- 
ginum  Constantinopolitanaram,  Teubner  Text,  Leipsig,  1907. 

Coliectio  librorum  juris  antejustiniani,  ed.  by  P.  Kriiger,  Berlin,  1890. 

Conciliengeschichie,  Hefele,  C.  F.,  9  vols.,  Freiburg-im-Breisgau,  1873- 
1890;  Eng.  trans,  vols.  1-5,  London,  1871-1885;  Fr.  trans.  H. 
Leclercq,  Paris,  1907-1914,  in  progress. 

Consularia  Constantinopolitana,  in  vol.  ix  of  [M.G.H.]  Auct.  Antiq. 

Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  ed.  by  Mommsen  et  at.,  Berlin,  1862- 
;  new  edition  also  in  progress,  1893  . 

Corpus  Legum  ab  Imperatoribus  Romanis  ante  Justinianum  Latinarum, 
ed.  by  Haenel,  Leipsig,  1858. 

Epistulae  Imperatorum,  Pontiftcum,  Aliorum  inde  ab  a.  ccclvi  usque 
ad  a.  dliii  datae,  Avellana  quae  dicitur  coliectio,  ed.  by  O.  Guenther, 
in  [C.S.E.L.],  Vienna,  1895. 


252  BIBLIOGRAPHY  j>IO 

Eumenius,  Panegyricus  Constantino  Augusto,  in  vol.  iii,  of  Panegyrici 
Veteres,  ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828;  also  in  [M.P.L.], 
vol.  viii. 

Gratiarum  Actio  Constantino  Augusto,  in  vol.  iii  of  Panegyrici 

Veteres,  ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828;  also  in  [M.P.L.], 
vol.  viii. 

Eunapius,  Opera,  ed.  by  C.  Midler,  in  vol.  iv  of  Fragmenta  Histori- 
corum  Graecorum,  1868,  by  L.  Dindorf  in  Historici  Graeci  Minores, 
2  vols.,  Leipsig,  1870-1871 ;  Vitae  Sophistarum,  Gk.  and  L.  text, 
Boissonade,  1849.  Fr.  trans.  {Vies  des  Philosophes  et  des 
Sophistes)  by  S.  de  Rouville,  Paris,  1879. 

Eusebius,  Opera,  ed.  by  Dindorf  in  Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig,  1867-71. 

Historia  Ecclesiastica,   ed.  by   Schwartz   and   Mommsen,  2  vols., 

Leipsig,  1908;  fine  critical  notes;  Eng.  trans,  by  A.  C.  McGiffert 
[N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  i,  New  York,  1890. 

Oratio,  'Eng.  trans,  by  E.  C.  Richardson  [N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  i, 

New  York,  1890. 

Vita  Constantini,  in  [M.P.G.],  vol.  viii;  Eng.  trans,  by  E.  C.  Rich- 
ardson [N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  i,  New  York,  1890. 

Eutropius,  Breviarium  Historiae  Romanae,  Baumgarten-Crusius- 
Dietsch,  Teubner  Texts,  2  vols.,  Leipsig,  1877;  also  in  vol.  ii 
[M.G.H.]  auct.  antiq.,  Berlin,  1879;  and  Latin  and  Fr.  texts  in 
Nisard's  Collection  des  auteurs  latins,  vol.  xxi,  1845;  Eng.  trans,  by 
J.  S.  Watson  in  Bohn  Classical  Library,  London,  1853;  also  in 
Justin,  Cornelius  Nepos  and  Eutropius,  London,  1910. 

Firmicus  Maternus,  De  Errore  profanarum  religionum,  ed.  by  K. 
Ziegler,  Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig,  1907;  also  [C.S.E.L.],  Vienna, 
1867. 

Gregory  Nazianzus,  Opera,  ed.  by  Morelli,  2  vols.,  Cologne,  1690. 

Hesychius  Illustrius,  in  vol.  i,  Scriptores  Originum  Constantino  pol'v- 
tanarum,  T.  Preger,  Teubner  Text,  Leipsig,  1901. 

Historiae  Augustae  Scriptores  Sex,  ed.  by  P.  Hermann,  2  vols,  in  1, 
Teubner  Text,  Leipsig,  1884. 

Incerti  Panegyricus  Constantino  Aug.  in  vol.  iii  Panegyrici  Veteres, 
ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828;  also  in  [M.P.L.],  vol. 
viii ;  also  in  Teubner  Text,  1874. 

Inscriptionum  Latinarum  sclectarum  amplissima  collectio,  Hagenbuch- 
Orelli-Henzen. 

Jerome,  Eusebii  Chronicorum  Inter prete  S.  Hieronymo,  in  [M.P.L.]. 

Julian,  Opera,  ed.  by  Hertlein,  2  vols,  in  1  in  Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig, 
1875-6;  W.  C.  Wright  in  Loeb  Classical  Library,  2  vols.,  London, 
1913;  Eng.  trans,  by  King  in  Bohn's  Classical  Library. 

Lactantius,  De  Mortibus  Perse cutorum,  ed.  by  S.  Brandt  in  [C.S.E.L.], 
Vienna,  1893,  also  in  [M.P.L.]  ;  an  Eng.  trans,  in  [A.N.F.]. 


5i  i ]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  253 

Latini  Pacati  Panegyrkus  in   vol.   iii   of   Panegyrki   Veteres,   ed.   by- 
Schwartz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828. 
Leges  Cotistantini  in  vol.  viii,  cols.  92-400  of  [M.P.L.]. 
Libanius,  Opera,  ed.  by  R.  Foerster,  7  vols.,  Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig, 
1903-1913. 

Orationes,  ed.  by  Morelli,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1627. 

Pro   templis,   Eng.  trans,  by  Lardner,  in  Arguments  of  Celsus, 

Porphry,  and  the  Emperor  Julian,  London,  1830. 
Liber  Pontificals,  ed.  by  L.  Duchesne,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1888-1892;  also 
1  vol.  of  an  uncompleted  edition  by  Mommsen   [M.G.H.],  Berlin, 
1898.     Mommsen's  edition  gives  every  known  reading,   but  lacks 
exhaustive  notes  which  make  the  Duchesne  edition  so  valuable. 
Lydus,  Johannes,  De  Mensibus,  Leipsig,  1827. 
Malalas,    Johannes,    Chronographia,    vol.    xxiv,    in    [C.B.H.],    Venice, 

1733,  vol.  xv  in  [C.S.B.H.],  Bonn,  1831. 
Marcellinus,    Chronicon,   vol    xi    [M.G.H.],    Chronica    Minora,    Berlin, 

1894. 
Nazarius,   Panegyrkus   Constantino   Augustino   dictus,   in    vol.    iii    of 
Panegyrki  Veteres,  ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  London,  1828;  also 
[M.P.L.],  vol.  viii. 
Notitia   dignitatum   pro    Urbe    Constantinopolitana   Nova   Roma,    ed. 

O.  Seeck,  1875. 
.Orosius,  Paulus,  Historiae  adversum  Paganos,  ed.  by  C.  Zangmeister, 
Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig,  1889;  in  [C.S.E.L.],  Zangmeister,  Vienna, 
1882;  also  in  [M.P.L.]. 
Panegyrki  Veteres,  ed.  by  Schwarz  and  Arntz,  5  vols.,  London,  1828; 

also  in  [M.P.L.]. 
Philostorgius,  Historia  Ecclesiastka,  vol.  lxv,  in  [M.P.G.] ;  Eng.  trans. 

by  Walford,  Bohn  Classical  Library,  London,  1855. 
Prudentius,  Contra  Symmachum,  ed.  by  T.  Obbarius,  2  vols.,  Tubingen, 

1845;  in  [M.P.L.]  ;  Eng.  trans,  by  Thackery,  London,  1890. 
Rufinus,   Historia   Ecclesiastka,   vol.   xxi,    in    [M.P.L.]  ;    Eng.   trans. 

[N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  iii,  New  York,  1892. 
Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Nova  et  Amplissima  Collectio,   ed.   by  J.   D. 
Mansi,  Florence  and  Venice,  1759-1798;  reprint  in  progress,  Paris, 

190 1 . 

Scriptores  Originum  Constantino politanarum,  2  vols.,  ed.  by  Th.  Preger, 

in  Teubner  Texts,  Leipsig,  1901-7. 
Socrates,  Historia  Ecclesiastka,  3  vols.,  ed.  by  R.  Hussey,  Oxford,  1853 ; 
in  [M.P.G.],  vol.  lxvii;  an  Eng.  trans,  by  A.  C.  Zenos  [N.P.N.F.], 
ser.  2,  vol.  ii,  New  York,  1890. 
Sozomen,  Historia  Ecclesiastka,  2  vols.,  ed.  by  R.  Hussey,  Oxford, 
1858-60;  also  in  [M.P.G.],  vol.  lxvii;  an  Eng.  trans,  in  [N.P.N.F.], 
ser.  2,  vol.  ii,  New  York,  1890. 


254  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [5 12 

Sulpitius   Sever  us,   Opera,  vol.  xx,  in    [M.P.L.] ;   in    [B.L.F.],   Paris, 

1848,  1849;  Eng.  trans,  by  A.  Roberts  [N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  xi, 

New  York,  1894. 
Symmachus,  Opera,  ed.  by  O.  Seeck  in  [M.G.H.],  auct.  Antiq.,  vol.  vi, 

Berlin,  1883,  also  in  [M.P.L.],  vol.  lxii. 
Theodoret,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ed.  by  T.  Gainsford,  Oxford,  1834; 

also  by  L.  Parmentier,  Leipsig,  1911 ;  in  [M.P.G.] ;  an  Eng.  trans. 

by  B.  Jackson  [N.P.N.F.],  ser.  2,  vol.  iii,  New  York,  1892. 
Zonaras,  Annates,  ed.  by  Du  Cange,  2  vols,  in  [C.B.H.],  Paris,  1686-7; 

in  [C.S.H.B.],  Bonn,  1841. 
Zosimus,    Historia    Nova,    ed.    by    L.    Mendelssohn,    Leipsig,    1887; 

[C.S.H.B.],  Bonn,  1837;  Eng.  trans.,  London,  1814. 

II.  Secondary  Works 

Allard,    Paul.    Le    Christian  is  me    ct   L'Empire   Romain    de   Neron    a 

Theodose,  Paris,  1898. 
D'Alviella.    Art.  Cross  in  The  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics, 

ed.  J.  Hastings,  in  progress,  vol.  iv,  pp.  324  et  seq. 
Becker,  Erich.    Konstantin  der  Grosse,  der  neue  Moses  in  Zeitschrift 

fitr  Kirchengeschichte,  1910,  vol.  xxxi,  pp.  161  et  seq. 
Beugnot,  A.  A.    Histoire  de  la  destruction  du  paganisme  en  Occident, 

2  vols.     Paris,  1835. 
Boissier,  Gaston.    La  Fin  du  Paganisme  en  Occident,  2  vols.,  Paris, 

1891;    (5th  edition,  Paris,  1907)- 
Botsford,  G.  W.    A.  History  of  the  Ancient  World,  New  York,  191 1. 
Boyd,    W.   K.    Ecclesiastical   Edicts   of   the    Theodosian    Code,   New 

York,  1905. 
Brieger,   Theodor.     Constantin    der   Grosse   als    Religionspolitiker   in 

Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte,  1881,  vol.  iv,  pp.  163  et  seq. 
De  Broglie,  M.  A.    L'Eglise  et  L'Empire  Romain  au  iv™e  Siecle,  6  vols.,, 

Paris,  1877. 
Burckhardt,  Jacob.    Die  Zeit  Constantins  des  Grossen,  Leipsig.  1880. 
Bury,  J.  B.    A  History  of  the  Later  Roman  Empire,  2  vols.,  London, 

1889. 
Cambridge  Mediaeval  History,  planned  by  J.  B.  Bury,  ed.  by  Gwatkin 

and  Whitney,  2  vols.,  New  York,  191 1  ,  in  progress. 

Ciampini,  G.  G.    De  Satris  aediiiciis  a  Constantino  Magno  Constructis 

synopsis  historica,  Rome,  1693. 
Carter,  J.  B.     The  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome,  Boston  and  New 

York,  191 1. 
Chastel,  E.    Histoire  de  la  destruction  du  paganisme  dans  I'Empire 

d'orient,  Paris,  1850. 
Clinton,  H.  F.    Fasti  Romani,  Oxford,  2  vols.,  1845-1850. 
Cohen,   Henry.    Description  Historique  des  Monnaies  frappees  sous 

I'Empire  Romain,  7  vols.,  Paris,  1888. 


513]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  255 

Cumont,  Franz.    Astrology  and  Religion,  New  York,  1912. 

Les  Mysteres  de  Mithra,  Brussels,  1900,  3d  ed.  1913;  Eng.  trans. 

of  2d  ed.  by  J.  M.  McCormack,  Chicago,  1910. 

Textes  et  monuments   figures  relatifs  aux   mysteres   de  Mithra 

publics  avec  tine  introduction  critique,  2  vols.,  Brussels,  1869-99. 

Les  Religions  oricntales  dans  le  Paganisme  Romain,  Paris,  1906; 

an  English  translation  by  G.  Showerman,  Chicago,  191 1. 

Dill,    Samuel,  Roman  Society  in   the  Last   Century   of   the   Western 

Empire,  New  York,  1906. 
Dolger,   F.  J.     Die  Taufe   Konstantins   und   ihre    Probleme   in   Kon- 

stantin  der  Grosse  und  Seine  Zeit,  ed.  by  F.  J.  Dolger,  Freiburg, 

1913. 

Konstantin  der  Grosse  und  seine  Zeit,  Freiburg,  1913.  A  collec- 
tion of  essays  on  the  1600  anniversary  of  Constantine's  victory 
over  Maxentius. 

Duchesne,  L.    Histoire  Ancienne  de  I'Eglise,  2  vols.,  Paris,  191 1. 

Ebert,  A.  Allgemeine  Geschkhte  der  Litteratur  des  Mittelalters  im 
Abendland,  3  vols.,  Leipsig,  1874-1887;  French  translation,  Paris, 
1883. 

Firth,  John  B.     Constantine  the  Great,  New  York,  1905. 

Fowler,  W.  W.  The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People  from 
the  Earliest  Time  to  the  Age  of  Augustus,  London,  1910. 

Frothingham,  A.  L.  The  Monuments  of  Christian  Rome  from  Con- 
stantine to  the  Renaissance,  New  York,  1908. 

Gibbon,  E.  The  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
ed.  by  J.  B.  Bury,  7  vols.,  London,  1900-1902. 

Girard,  P.  F.    A  Short  History  of  Roman  Law,  Toronto,  1906. 

Glover,  T.  R.    Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century,  Cambridge,  1901. 

The  Conflict  of  Religions  in  the  Early  Roman  Empire,  London, 

1910. 

Gorres,  Franz.  Eine  Bestreitung  des  Edicts  von  Mailand  durch  Otto 
Seeck  Kritisch  beleuchtet,  in  Zeitschrift  filr  Wissenschaftliche 
Theologie,  1892,  vol.  xxxv,  pp.  282  et  seq. 

Gregorovius,  F.  Geschichte  der  Staat  Rom  im  Mittelalter,  8  vols. 
Stuttgart,  1859-1872;  English  translation  by  A.  Hamilton,  London, 
1894-1902. 

Gwatkin.  Constantine  and  his  City  in  vol.  i,  ch.  i,  of  the  Cambridge 
Mediaeval  History. 

Healey,  P.  J.  Constantine's  Edict  of  Toleration  in  the  Catholic  Uni- 
versity Bulletin,  1913,  no.  1,  pp.  3-20. 

Hodgkin,  T.    Italy  and  her  Invaders,  8  vols.,  Oxford,  1880-1899. 

The  Dynasty  of  Theodosius,  Oxford,  1889. 

Hubert,  H.,  art.  Magia  in  Dictionnaire  des  Antiquitcs  Grecques  et 
Romaines,  ed.  by  Daremberg,  Soglio  et  Pottier,  Paris,  1873-1913. 
Still  in  progress. 


256  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [5!4 

Hiille,  H.  Die  Toleranserlasse  romischer  Kaiser  fur  das  Christentum 
bis  sum  Jahre  313,  Berlin,  1895. 

Humphrey,  F.  E.  Politics  and  Religion  in  the  Time  of  Augustine, 
New  York,  1912. 

Jones,  H.  Stuart.     Companion  to  Roman  History,  Oxford,  1912. 

Jordan,  H.  Ueber  die  Ausdriicke  aedes  templum  fanum  delubrum  in 
Hermes  Zeitschrift  fur  Classische  Philologie,  vol.  xiv,  1879. 

Kriiger,  Paul.  Geschichte  der  Quellen  und  Litteratur  der  Romischen 
Rechts,  Leipsig,  1888;  French  translation  by  M.  Brissaud,  Paris, 
1894. 

Krumbacher,   K.     Geschichte   der  Bysantinischen  Litteratur  von  Jus- 
tinian bis  sum  Ende  des  Ostromischen  Reiches,  Munich,  1897. 
lr       Lanciani.    Pagan  and  Christian  Rome,  Boston  and  New  York,  1893. 

The  Destruction  of  Ancient  Rome,  London,  1901. 

Lasaulx,  E.  von.    Der  Unter  gang  des  Hellenismus,  Munich,  1854. 

Lea,  H.  C.    History  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  Middle  Ages,  3  vols.,  New 

York,  1887-1900. 
Lecky,  W.  E.  H.     The  History  of  the  rise  and  influence  of  the  spirit  of 

of  rationalism  in  Europe,  2  vols.,  New  York,  1906. 
Leufkens,  J.     Der  Triumphbogen  Konstantins  in  Konstantin  der  Grosse 

und  seine  Zeit,  ed.  by  F.  J.  Dolger,  Freiburg,  1913. 
Marquardt,  Joachim.    Das  Sacralwesen,  vol.  iii  of  Romische  Staats- 

verwaltung,  vol.  vi  of  Handbuch  der  romischen  Alterthumer,  ed. 

by  Mommsen  and  Marquardt,  2d  ed.,  Leipsig,  1881-85;  Fr.  trans. 

Le  Culte  Chez  les  Romains,  by  M.  Brissaud,  vols,  xii  and  xiii  in 

Manuel  des  Antiquites  Romaines,  Paris,  1889-90. 

Romische  Staatsverwaltung,  vols,  iv,  v  and  vi  in  Handbuch  der 

romischen  Alterthumer,  ed.  by  Mommsen  and  Marquardt,  2d  ed., 
Leipsig,  1881-5. 

Maurice,  J.    Numismatique  Constantinienne,  3  vols.,  Paris,  1908. 
Maury,    L.   F.    A.    La   Magie  et   I'Astrologie   dans   I'Antiquite   et   au 

Moyen  Age,  Paris,  i860. 
Mommsen,  Th.    Rdmisches  Staatsrecht,  3  vols,  in  5,  Leipsig,  1887-8. 

Rdmisches  Strafrecht,  Leipsig,  1899;  Fr.  trans,  by  J.  Duquesne  in 

3  vols.,  Paris,  1907. 

Moore,  G.  F.    A  History  of  Religions,  so  far  vol.  i,  published,  New 

York,  1913. 
Ranke,  L.  von.     Weltgeschichte,  Leipsig,  1883. 
Rauschen,  G.    Jahrbiicher  der  Christ'ichen  Kirche  unter  dem  Kaiser 

Theodosius  dem  Grossen,  Freiburg-im-Breisgau,  1897. 
Reinach,  S.    Orpheus. 

Rendall,  G.  H.     The  Emperor  Julian,  London,  1879. 
Richter,  H.    Das   Westromische  Reich  besonders  unter  den  Kaisern 

Gratian,  Valentinian  II  and  Maximus,  Berlin,  1865. 


C!c]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  257 

Schiller.     Geschichte  der  rdmischen  Kaiser zeit,  2  vols. 
Schultze,  Victor,  art.   Constantine,  in  vol.  Hi,  pp.  250  et  seq.  of  the 
New  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  1909. 

-  Der  Staat  und  das  Opferwesen  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1886,  vol.  viii,  pp. 

527-534- 

Die  romische   Bildsaule  mit  dem  Kreuze,  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,   1885, 

vol.  vii. 

Die  Inschrift  von  Hispellum  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1885,  vol.  vii. 

Geschichte  des  Untergangs  des  griechisch-romischen  Heidentums, 

Jena,  1887. 

Konstantin  und  die  Haruspicin,  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,   1886,  vol.  viii, 

pp.  517-527. 

Quellenuntersuchungen    zur    Vita    Constantini    des    Eusebius    in 

Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  xiv. 

Tempelbauten  in  Konstantinopel,  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  vol.  vii. 

Schwartz,    Ed.    Der   Kaiser    Constantin   und   die    Christliche   Kirche, 

Leipsig,  1913. 
Seeck,   Otto.     Das  sogenannte  Edikt  von   Mailand  in  Zeitschrift  fur 
Kirchengeschichte,  1891,  vol.  xii. 

Die  Brief e  des  Libanins  seitlich  geordnet,  Leipsig,  1906. 

Geschichte  des  Untergangs  der  Antiken  Welt,  Berlin. 

Die  Urkunde  der  Vita  Constantini  in  Z.  F.  K.  G.,  1898,  vol.  xviii. 

Die  Zcitfolge  der  Gesetse  Constantins,  in  Zeitschrift  der  Savigny- 

Stiftung  fiir  Rechtsgeschichte,  Romische  Abteilung,  1889,  vol.  x. 

Neue  und  Alte  Daten  sur  Geschichte  Diocletians  und  Constantins 

in  Rheinisches  Museum  fiir  Philologie,  1907,  vol.  lxii. 

Sesan,  V.     Kirche  und  Staat  im   romisch-bysantinischen  Reiche  seit 

Konstantin  dem  Grossen  bis  sum  Fall  Konstantinopel,  191 1. 
Tillemont,  M.  L.  de.     Histoire  des  Empereurs,  6  vols.,  Paris,  1701. 

Memoirs  pour  servir  a  Fhistoire  ecclesiastique  des  six  premiers 

siecles,  Paris,  1706. 

Wadsworth,  J.,  art.  on  Constantine  I  in  vol.  i  of  Smith  and  Wace's 

Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  Boston,  1877-87. 
Wissowa,  Georg.    Arts.  Constantine,  and  Constantinople,  in  vol.  iv,  pp. 

963  et  seq.     Pauly's  Real-Encyclop'ddie  des  Classischen  Alter  tums- 

wissenschaft,  Stuttgart,  1901. 
Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer,  vol.  v,  in  series  Handbuch  der 

Klassischen  Altertumswissenschaft,  ed.  by  I.  von  Miiller,  Munich, 

1912. 
Wittig,  J.     Das  Toleranzrescript  von  Mailand  in  Konstantin  der  Grosse 

und  seine  Zeit,  ed.  by  F.  J.  Dolger,  Freiburg,  1913. 


VITA 


The  Author  of  this  study  acquired  her  early  education 
at  The  Packer  Collegiate  Institute  where  she  was  grad- 
uated. She  received  from  Columbia  University  the  B.  S. 
degree  in  1904  and  the  A.  M.  degree  in  1905.  As  a 
graduate  student  she  studied  under  Professors  W.  A. 
Dunning.  J.  H.  Robinson,  J.  T.  Shotwell,  G.  M.  Botsford, 
Calvin  Thomas,  W.  W.  Lawrence,  and  H.  Bargy.  She 
had  seminars  with  Professors  Robinson,  Shotwell  and 
Dunning.  In  1905  she  was  appointed  Assistant  in  His- 
tory in  Barnard  College,  later  becoming  successively 
Lecturer  and  Tutor.  She  was  advanced  in  1910,  to  the 
rank  of  Instructor  in  the  same  college,  and  that  position 
she  occupies  at  the  present  time. 

259 


I  i 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0035518260 


931*6 
H978 


5 

O 

r- 


•   00 

o  x 


ffisr 


